maps manual - 2021 protocol

MAPS MANUAL

2021 PROTOCOL

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION

OF CONSTANT-EFFORT BIRD-BANDING STATIONS AS PART OF THE

MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) PROGRAM

David F. DeSante, Kenneth M. Burton, Danielle Kaschube,

Pilar Velez, Dan Froehlich, and Steven Albert

The Institute for Bird Populations

PO Box 518

Petaluma, CA 94953

(707) 789-3224

www.birdpop.org

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank MAPS biologists Eric Feuss, Denise Jones, Sara Martin, Eric (Zed) Ruhlen,

Hillary Smith, Brett Walker, Kerry Wilcox, and Mellissa Winfield and research

scientists Phil Nott and Jim Saracco for their help in the development of this manual

and for comments on earlier versions and revisions. We especially thank Nicole

Michel and Peter Pyle for critical help with the overall development of this manual

and in word-crafting the more recent revisions. Feedback from the many MAPS

station operators also has been invaluable in refining both the manual and the MAPS

Program itself.

Funding for the development, establishment, and operation of the MAPS Program

has come from many sources. Among the most important are the U.S.D.A. Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Defense/Legacy Resource Management Program,

U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service/Office of Migratory Bird Management and National

Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division, and National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We thank these and many other funding sources and

private individuals for their support.

Finally, we thank the many hundreds of station operators and all their assistants,

interns, and volunteers who, year after year, contribute their data to the MAPS

Program. Without their dedication and perseverance, MAPS could not exist.

This is Contribution Number 127 of The Institute for Bird Populations.

Recommended citation: DeSante, D.F., K.M. Burton, D.R. Kaschube, P. Velez, D.

Froehlich, and S. Albert. 2021. MAPS Manual: 2021 Protocol. The Institute for Bird

Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

  2021 MAPS Manual - i 
 
Contents 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5 
An Invitation ............................................................................................................ 5 
Bird Safety ............................................................................................................... 6 
Proper Permitting .................................................................................................... 6 
Background and Rationale ..................................................................................... 6 
Design and Objectives of the MAPS Program ....................................................... 8 
Analysis of MAPS Data ......................................................................................... 11 
ESTABLISHMENT AND GENERAL OPERATION OF MAPS STATIONS ........................ 15 
Siting a MAPS station ........................................................................................... 15 
Establishing a MAPS station ................................................................................ 17 
MAPS terminology ....................................................................................... 17 
General configuration .................................................................................. 18 
Mist nets (number) ...................................................................................... 18 
Mist nets (density) ....................................................................................... 18 
Mist nets (placement) ................................................................................. 19 
Mist nets (size, type, and mesh size) .......................................................... 20 
Operating a MAPS station .................................................................................... 20 
Station registration ...................................................................................... 20 
Banding - dates of operation ....................................................................... 20 
Effort data .................................................................................................... 22 
Breeding Status data ................................................................................... 23 
Habitat Structure Assessment (HSA) data ................................................ 23 
Instructions and data forms ........................................................................ 23 
Recording data and making corrections .................................................... 23 
The use of MAPSPROG ........................................................................................ 23 
MAPS data-use policy........................................................................................... 24 
STATION REGISTRATION .............................................................................................. 26 
Joining the MAPS Program .................................................................................. 26 
Instructions for completing the MAPS Station Registration Form .................... 26 
MIST-NETTING EFFORT ................................................................................................ 31 
Operation of nets .................................................................................................. 31 
Frequency of mist-netting effort .......................................................................... 31 
MAPS Periods and Intended Periods .................................................................. 32 
Making up missed effort ...................................................................................... 33 
Minimum allowable effort .................................................................................... 33 
STANDARD NET OPENING AND CLOSING TIMES ....................................................... 34 
Instructions for completing the Standard Net Opening and Closing Times    
form .............................................................................................................. 34 
SUMMARY OF EFFORT .................................................................................................. 36 
Instructions for completing the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort form ............. 36 
COLLECTION AND RECORDING OF BANDING DATA .................................................. 39 

ii - 2021 MAPS Manual 
 
General procedures for recording banding data ................................................. 39 
Primary MAPS data ..................................................................................... 39 
Supplemental data ...................................................................................... 39 
Optional data ............................................................................................... 40 
Codes, scales, and forms ............................................................................ 40 
Multiple-station locations ........................................................................... 40 
Non-MAPS data ........................................................................................... 40 
Page headings and other notations ........................................................... 41 
New bands ................................................................................................... 41 
Lost and destroyed bands .......................................................................... 41 
Recaptures ................................................................................................... 41 
Changed bands ............................................................................................ 42 
Added bands ................................................................................................ 42 
Unbanded birds ........................................................................................... 42 
Mortalities .................................................................................................... 42 
Banding-data fields .............................................................................................. 43 
BANDER’S INITIALS ..................................................................................... 43 
CODE ............................................................................................................ 43 
BAND NUMBER ............................................................................................ 43 
SPECIES NAME ............................................................................................ 44 
SPECIES ALPHA CODE ................................................................................ 44 
AGE .............................................................................................................. 45 
WRP .............................................................................................................. 46 
HOW AGED ................................................................................................... 50 
SEX ............................................................................................................... 52 
HOW SEXED ................................................................................................. 52 
SKULL ........................................................................................................... 52 
CL. PROT. ..................................................................................................... 54 
BR. PATCH ................................................................................................... 55 
FAT ............................................................................................................... 55 
BODY MLT .................................................................................................... 57 
FF MOLT ...................................................................................................... 57 
FF WEAR ...................................................................................................... 58 
JUV. BDY PL. ............................................................................................... 59 
MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE ......................................................................... 60 
WING ............................................................................................................ 63 
BODY MASS ................................................................................................. 63 
STATUS ........................................................................................................ 64 
DATE (MO/DAY) .......................................................................................... 64 
CAPTURE TIME ............................................................................................ 64 
STATION ...................................................................................................... 64 
NET ............................................................................................................... 64 
DISP .............................................................................................................. 64 

  2021 MAPS Manual - iii 
 
NOTE NUMBER ............................................................................................ 65 
FTHR. PULL .................................................................................................. 65 
NOTE ............................................................................................................ 65 
A strategy for ageing and sexing birds ................................................................ 65 
SUMMARY OF MIST-NETTING RESULTS ..................................................................... 67 
Instructions for completing the Summary of Mist-Netting Results form .......... 67 
BREEDING STATUS LIST ............................................................................................... 69 
PERIOD STATUS .......................................................................................... 71 
YEAR STATUS .............................................................................................. 72 
OBSERVER’S INITIALS ................................................................................. 76 
DATA SUBMISSION ....................................................................................................... 77 
What data to submit ............................................................................................. 77 
How to submit MAPS data ................................................................................... 77 
Submitting data through MAPSPROG ........................................................ 78 
Submitting banding data in electronic format other than through 
MAPSPROG .................................................................................. 79 
Submitting paper copies of banding data .................................................. 81 
Due date ................................................................................................................ 81 
Where to send data ............................................................................................... 81 
LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................ 84 
 
 
 
 
 

iv - 2021 MAPS Manual

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the continental U.S. and Canada showing the eight MAPS regions. . 9

Figure 2. Diagram of an idealized MAPS station. ........................................................ 19

Figure 3. Recommended starting periods for MAPS stations .................................... 21

Figure 4. Completed MAPS Station Registration Form ............................................... 28

Figure 5. Completed MAPS Standard Net Opening and Closing Times form. ........... 35

Figure 6. Completed MAPS Summary of Mist-Netting Effort (page 1) ....................... 38

Figure 7. Completed MAPS banding-data sheet for Band Size '0' (front). .................. 48

Figure 8. Completed MAPS banding sheet (back). ...................................................... 49

Figure 9. Completed MAPS Summary of Mist-Netting Results form. ........................ 68

Figure 10. Completed MAPS Breeding Status List ...................................................... 73

Tables

Table 1. Adult and young MAPS superperiods. ........................................................... 33

Table 2. Species alpha codes for gallinaceous birds .................................................. 44

Table 3. Hierarchical categories of Period Breeding Status (upper case) and

associated Daily Behavior Sub-Codes (lower case) for MAPS Breeding Status

List ........................................................................................................................ 71

Table 4. MAPS Banding-data file structure for 2021 data .......................................... 83

2021 MAPS Manual - 5

INTRODUCTION

An Invitation

Welcome to the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program! MAPS

is a cooperative effort among public agencies, private organizations, and the bird

banders of the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico to provide critical,

long-term data on population and demographic parameters for over 150 target landbird

species at multiple spatial scales. As part of the MAPS family, you team with hundreds

of private individuals, and workers from federal and state agencies and non-

governmental organizations to gather important data for the conservation of birds and

their habitat.

The MAPS Program utilizes standardized, constant-effort mist netting and banding

during the breeding season at an extensive network of stations. The MAPS methodology

provides annual indices of adult population size and post-fledging productivity from data

on the numbers and proportions of young and adult birds captured; and annual estimates

of adult survivorship, adult population size, proportion of resident individuals in the adult

population, recruitment into the adult population, and population growth rate (lambda)

from mark-recapture data on adult birds. This data is used by IBP and our collaborators

to study the causes of population changes in North America’s landbirds. This manual

(and all the forms associated with operating a MAPS station) are available for download

through the MAPS web page http://www.birdpop.org/pages/maps.php.

Any public agency, private organization, or independent bird bander currently operating or

able to establish one or more banding stations operated regularly through the breeding

season is encouraged to participate in the MAPS Program. All that is required is the

standardized operation of a series of about ten nets at permanent sites on only one day

during each of six to ten consecutive ten-day periods between May and August.

While the operation of a MAPS station is relatively simple, it is also a substantial

commitment. Standardization from year to year and continuation of the study for at least

five consecutive years at each station are necessary in order to provide reliable

productivity indices and survivorship estimates (“vital rates”). Continuation of the study

for ten to twenty consecutive years at most stations will likely be necessary to obtain

reliable trend information on these critical vital rates. This manual is designed to guide

you through all the steps involved in operating a MAPS station and to address any

questions that may arise. Everything contained herein is important; take the manual with

you on every visit to your station and, please, read and use it.

The Institute for Bird Populations is excited about the possibility of working with you in

an effort to monitor the productivity, survivorship, and population trends of North

American landbirds. We cordially invite you, therefore, to join in the MAPS Program. The

methodology outlined below may seem formidable at first glance. It is, however,

relatively simple: standardized mist netting and banding during the breeding season,

coupled with documentation of apparent breeding status of the birds present at the

station and the preparation of a simple habitat map and habitat structure assessment. In

addition, IBP provides technical assistance and guidance year-round to answer your

6 - 2021 MAPS Manual 
 
questions and guide you through the process. Furthermore, the MAPS Program requires 
the operation of nets on only six to ten days during the breeding season. Thus, the effort 
required to gather these extremely valuable data on the vital rates (productivity and 
survivorship) of landbirds is quite manageable. We invite you to become an important 
part of this exciting, cooperative endeavor by establishing one or more MAPS stations in 
your area. 
 
Bird Safety 
The protocols and objectives outlined in the following pages are designed to collect data 
that is valuable for bird conservation. However, protocols should never be followed at 
the expense of bird or human safety. As a responsible bander, if safety is ever a concern, 
you should suspend protocols until the concerns are addressed. Please insure that all of 
the banders at your station know and practice safe banding techniques.  
We encourage you to review ethical banding and safety procedures with your crews in 
depth at least once a year and always strive towards a safer banding experience. We 
recommend reviewing materials such as those provided by the North American Banding 
council (NABC; www.nabanding.net), The Ornithological Council (Guidelines to the Use of 
Wild Birds in Research; 
https://www.depts.ttu.edu/iacuc/documents/GuidelinesWildBirds.pdf ), The Mist 
Netter's Bird Safety Handbook available from IBP and the 2013 and 2018 MAPS Chats 
(https://www.birdpop.org/pages/mapsChatArchive.php) which provide bird safety 
suggestions for keeping your station as bird safe and smooth running as possible.  
Also, in this time COVID-19 we recommend you take extra precautions to keep your 
banding crews safe. We have created a bulletin board page with ideas for coping with the 
COVID-19 outbreak at bird-banding stations shared with us by members of the banding 
community. It will be updated as new ideas are shared. 
 
Proper Permitting 
All banders applying to operate or currently operating MAPS stations must adhere to all 
federal and state permitting requirements. Check that you have addressed these issues 
before beginning banding each season, and that relevant permits are up to date. Note: A 
special addendum is required on your federal banding permit to allow you to pull 
feathers. If you plan to participate in the cooperative UCLA feather sampling study, or 
similar studies, please insure that your permits include these special permissions. Please 
see http://www.birdpop.org/pages/mapsDataForms.php for the latest information on 
feather sampling.  
 
Background and Rationale 
Earth’s biosphere and its landbird populations are facing a growing number of 
environmental threats of ever-increasing severity, many of which, such as climate 

2021 MAPS Manual - 7

change, habitat loss, invasive species, and toxic pollution, are global in scale (Brown

1991). It is not surprising, therefore, that a number of large-scale, long-term monitoring

programs for landbirds were already in place on this continent before the MAPS Program

started. They include the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), the Breeding Bird Census and

Winter Bird Population Study, and the Christmas Bird Count. All of these efforts provide

annual information on landbird populations, and many of the resulting trends indicate

serious population declines in many species, including forest- and scrub-inhabiting

Nearctic-Neotropical migrant species (Robbins et al. 1989, Terborgh 1989) and

grassland species (Knopf 1994). These population declines, prompted the establishment

of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, "Partners in Flight" (PIF), to

which most federal agencies and many state and private organizations have become

signatories

The above-mentioned monitoring efforts, however, all fail to provide data on the primary

demographic parameters or vital rates (productivity and survivorship) of landbirds.

Without these critical data, it is difficult if not impossible to test competing hypotheses

to account for observed population changes, or to determine the stage(s) in the life cycle

at which these population changes are taking place; that is, whether the changes are

being driven by causal agents that affect birth rates or death rates or both (DeSante

1992). Efforts that monitor only avian population trends have generally been unable to

determine to what extent habitat destruction and degradation (e.g., deforestation and

forest fragmentation) on the temperate breeding grounds, versus that on the tropical

wintering grounds, are causes for declining populations of neotropical migratory

landbirds (Wilcove 1985, Holmes and Sherry 1988, Hutto 1988, Morton and Greenberg

1989, Peterjohn et al. 1995).

An integrated approach to monitoring primary demographic parameters and secondary

population trends of landbirds is critical for determining causes of population changes

and for identifying management actions and conservation strategies to reverse

population declines (Baillie 1990). Perhaps even more importantly, this approach aids in

evaluating the effectiveness of the management actions and conservation strategies

actually implemented (DeSante 1995). This is because environmental stressors and

management actions affect primary demographic parameters directly and usually

without the buffering or time lags that often occur with secondary population trends

(Temple and Wiens 1989). Monitoring the vital rates of landbirds also allows models to

be constructed regarding the viability of their populations. Habitat- and landscape-

specific data on vital rates provide a clear index of habitat and landscape quality, and

allow identification of habitat and landscape conditions that provide source populations

and that influence population sinks (DeSante and Rosenberg 1998). An increase in

demographic monitoring has been called for by the Monitoring Working Group of PIF

since 1992 (Butcher and Droege 1992), and an argument for basing avian management

on vital rates has been provided by DeSante et al. (2005).

In 1989, The Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) anticipated these monitoring needs and

created the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program, a

cooperative effort to operate a continent-wide network of constant-effort mist-netting

stations to capture and band landbirds during the breeding season (DeSante 1992,

8 - 2021 MAPS Manual

DeSante et al. 1993, 1995). The MAPS Program was patterned on the British Constant

Effort Sites (CES) Scheme which since 1981 has been one of the cornerstones of the

British Trust for Ornithology’s Integrated Population Monitoring Programme (Baillie et al.

1986, Baillie 1990, Peach et al. 1996) and has inspired at least 15 other European CES

efforts (Robinson et al. 2009). The first three years of MAPS was an IBP-sponsored

feasibility study, during which time the program grew from 16 stations in 1989 to 66

stations in 1991 and the MAPS protocol became standardized. MAPS was endorsed in

1992 by the Monitoring Working Group of PIF and a four-year pilot study was sponsored

by the Migratory Bird Management Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(sponsorship later transferred to the Biological Resources Division of the U.S.G.S.).

The number of stations grew dramatically in subsequent years to nearly 400, primarily

through the involvement of the Department of Defense (Legacy Resource Management

Program) and U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

In 1996, the MAPS methodology underwent an extensive peer-review. Some of the

conclusions of this review were that, “MAPS is technically sound and based on the best

available biological and statistical methods" and that “MAPS complements other land

bird monitoring programs such as the BBS by providing useful information on land bird

demographics that is not available elsewhere” (Geissler 1997). A summary and analyses

of the MAPS methodology were provided by DeSante et al. (2004a) and Burton and

DeSante (2004). MAPS has continued to expand since 1995 to some 300-500 stations

operated each year during 2001-2021.

Design and Objectives of the MAPS Program

MAPS is organized around several monitoring, research, and management objectives: to

provide (a) annual estimates of adult survival rate, adult population size, proportion of

residents in the adult population, recruitment into the adult population, and population

growth rate (lambda); and (b) annual indices of adult population size and post-fledging

productivity. MAPS provides these population and demographic indices and estimates

for nearly over 150 landbird species that are well-distributed among various migration-

strategy, foraging-strategy, nest-location, and habitat-preference guilds. In addition,

MAPS works at multiple spatial scales, from program-wide (essentially the entire

continent north of Mexico), MAPS Regions (Fig. 1), Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), or

BBS Physiographic Strata, to small scales, such as clusters of stations, on a single

national forest, park, or military installation, or local landscapes surrounding single

stations (e.g., four-km radius areas).

MAPS Regions have been defined by dividing the continent into eight major areas:

Alaska, Boreal & Arctic Canada, Northwest, North-central, Northeast, Southwest,

South-central, and Southeast (Fig. 1). These delineations generally follow the boundaries

of BBS Physiographic Strata and are based on both biogeographic and meteorological

considerations, including the apparent periodicity of the Jet Stream. Seasonal weather

tends to be similar at many locations within a given region, but often varies considerably

among regions. It is likely that population and demographic parameters will vary in a

2021 MAPS Manual - 9

similar manner at many banding stations within a region, at least to the extent to which

they are influenced by weather conditions.

The achievement of the monitoring objectives of MAPS has been well documented in

MAPS reports (DeSante et al. 1996, 1998, DeSante and O’Grady 2000, DeSante and

Kaschube 2006, 2007, 2009) and on the VitalRatesofNorthAmericanLandbirds.org

(DeSante et al. 2015) website in which adult population size and productivity indices and

adult apparent survival rates are presented. The research objectives of MAPS are to

identify and describe: (a) temporal and spatial patterns in the demographic indices and

estimates provided by MAPS (DeSante et al. 2015) and (b) relationships between these

temporal and spatial patterns and (1) ecological characteristics of the target species

(e.g., migration strategy, nest location), (2) population trends of the target species (e.g.,

areas or locations with increasing or decreasing trends) (DeSante et al. 2015), (3)

station-specific and landscape-level habitat characteristics (e.g., total forest cover, mean

FIGURE 1. Map of the continental U.S. and Canada showing the eight MAPS Regions.

10 - 2021 MAPS Manual

forest patch size), and (4) spatially-explicit weather data (e.g., mean, min, and max

temperature or precipitation, extreme events).

MAPS allows these objectives to be met for multiple species at multiple spatial scales.

Achievement of these research objectives is providing empirical information regarding

life-history strategies and other topics of interest to avian ecology (DeSante et al. 1999,

DeSante 2000), including the effects of global climate cycles on avian productivity

(Saracco et al. 2019, Nott et al. 2002). A future important research effort will be to

integrate extensive count data (for example, from E-bird and the Avian Knowledge

Network) with Cormack-Jolly-Seber capture-mark-recapture (CMR) data from MAPS and

extensive remote-sensed environmental data in an effort to improve the predictive

accuracy of demographic rates and abundance through space and time (Saracco et al.

2009a). This type of analyses has already been completed applying integrated

population models (IPMs) to MAPS and North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data

to better assess the driving forces behind a declining warbler species (Saracco and

Rubenstein 2020).

In addition, however, by analyzing the relationships between spatial variation in

population trends (using for example, BBS data) and the vital rates that drive those

trends, we have been able to make inferences regarding the proximate demographic

cause(s) of population decline, that is, to suggest whether the decline is caused by low

productivity or low survivorship (DeSante et al. 2001). This, in fact, is the first

management objective of MAPS C an objective that can be achieved by no other North

American avian monitoring program (Saracco et al. 2008).

The second management objective of MAPS is to determine the ultimate

(environmental) causes of population trends and to identify and formulate landscape-

scale management actions and conservation strategies to reverse population declines

and maintain stable or increasing populations. We do this by modeling vital rates

(productivity indices and survival and recruitment estimates) as functions of landscape-

scale and site-specific habitat characteristics and spatially-explicit weather and climate

variables to identify habitat characteristics and weather variables that exert strong

effects on the vital rates of landbird species, especially species of conservation concern.

Management prescriptions developed this way for species for which productivity is

critical for maintaining stable populations, involve modifying habitat characteristics from

those associated with low productivity to those associated with higher productivity.

Examples of these types of analyses of MAPS data, that are allowing us to achieve our

second major management objective, are the focus of the management guidelines and

conservation strategies that we have developed for reversing declines of landbirds of

conservation concern on DOD installations in southeastern United States (Nott 2000,

Nott et al. 2003a) and on national forests in the Pacific Northwest (Nott et al. 2005). We

are developing decision support tools for managers, whereby they themselves can

determine the effects of their proposed management actions on the vital rates of

species of concern. One way to increase populations is to increase productivity and

MAPS data has been used to determine anthropogenic noise effects on productivity

which will be important to determine which areas are important to conserve (Ng et al.

2020)

2021 MAPS Manual - 11

The third management objective of MAPS is to evaluate, through the adaptive

management process, the effectiveness of the management actions and conservation

strategies. If the goal is to manage for increased productivity (as is the implicit goal of

most breeding-grounds management), it is imperative to monitor productivity. With

wetter springs in recent years in the grasslands of Nebraska, longer grasses have caused

declines in Grasshopper Sparrow but MAPS data has shown managing these grasslands

with prescribed can help mitigate lowered productivity (Glass et al. 2020). Measuring the

age structure of population, as provided in MAPS data, has also given important clues to

habitat quality with more yearling birds being present in higher numbers in reclaimed

areas compared to undisturbed area (Pyle et al. 2020).

MAPS’ three management objectives can be achieved for multiple species at appropriate

spatial scales.

Analysis of MAPS Data

IBP researchers have also completed a number of analyses and evaluations of the

program in various geographical areas and landholdings. This effort began with a

general analysis of the results of the first ten years (1992-2001) of the MAPS program in

Alaska and adjacent Canada (DeSante et al. 2003a), followed by an analysis of the

statistical power to detect temporal trends and spatial differences in survival of

landbirds breeding in Alaska and adjacent Canada (DeSante et al. 2003b). These were

followed by an evaluation of the data collected at MAPS stations operated on National

Wildlife Refuges in the USFWS Pacific Region (DeSante et al. 2004b) which lead to an

expanded evaluation of the MAPS Program on all stations in the Pacific Northwest

(DeSante et al. 2005). Broadening our scope, we then conducted general analyses of the

statistical power to detect temporal trends and spatial differences in survival from CMR

models (DeSante et al. 2009), and applied those models to MAPS data in each MAPS

region and at the continental scale in order to develop a vision for expanding MAPS and

integrating it into Coordinated Bird Monitoring all across North America (Saracco et al.

2006, DeSante and Saracco 2009). Most recently, we built upon that continental vision

and provided detailed recommendations for integrating MAPS into Coordinated Bird

Monitoring in the Northeast, i.e., USFWS Region 5 (DeSante et al. 2008). We are currently

seeking resources to allow us to continue these latter analyses and provide analogous

detailed recommendations for the remainder of the United States and Canada. This has

become critically important as state and federal agencies and non-governmental

organizations seek to develop bird conservation plans to deal with the huge threats

posed by climate change. The assessment and monitoring of avian vital rates using

MAPS may well provide one of the optimal resources with which to model and predict

the effects of climate change on landbird populations, to guide adaptation and

conservation efforts to mitigate those effects, and to evaluate the effectiveness of those

efforts.

Annual indices of adult population size and post-fledging productivity (i.e., reproductive

index, the ratio of young to adults in the catch) are calculated for each species from the

numbers of young and adult birds captured, which are pooled over all the stations. The

statistical significance is inferred from confidence intervals calculated from the standard

12 - 2021 MAPS Manual

errors of the mean percentage changes in these indices for species captured at the

stations. This analytical method has been applied successfully to constant-effort

mist-netting data generated by the CES and MAPS (Peach et al. 1996, DeSante et al.

1998) programs. Long-term changes in numbers of young and adult birds are assessed

through application of log-linear Poisson regression models, which allow tests for

temporal trends and for differences in trends for different groups of stations (Peach et

al. 1998).

Annual estimates of adult survival rate, proportion of residents in the adult population,

recruitment into the adult population, and population growth rate (lambda) are obtained

for each species from modified CMR analyses. Major advances have been made in both

the theory and application of data from CMR experiments (Pollock et al. 1990, Lebreton

et al. 1992). These advances provide for increased precision in the resulting estimates

and also allow spatial, age, and/or time dependence in the estimates of survival and

recapture rates to be assessed, permit some parameters to be set equal to fixed a priori

values, and allow any of the parameters to be related to external variables (Clobert et al.

1987). This approach was initially applied to mark-recapture data from both Great Tits

and Black-headed Gulls in Europe (Clobert et al. 1987), and from Sedge and Reed

Warblers in Britain (Peach et al. 1990, 1991) and has become a major analytical tool. By

using reverse-time analysis of CMR data, models have been developed to permit

estimation of recruitment and population growth rates (Pradel 1998). In addition, models

have been developed to account for the negative bias of transient (non-resident)

individuals on survival-rate estimates and to estimate the proportion of resident

individuals among newly captured adult birds (Pradel et al. 1997, Nott and DeSante 2002,

Hines et al. 2003). These transient models are incorporated into the capture-mark-

recapture analyses of MAPS data (e.g., Rosenberg et al. 1999) and can be utilized

through the computer programs SURVIV (White 1983), TMSURVIV (Hines et al. 2003),

and MARK (White and Burnham 1999).

More recently, using both reverse time (Pradel 1998) and transient (Pradel et al. 1997,

Nott and DeSante 2002, Hines et al. 2003) CMR models, we can examine relationships

between spatial variation in MAPS trend estimates (lambda) and spatial variation in

critical vital rates including adult apparent survival, recruitment, productivity, and first-

year survival. As a pilot analysis, we assessed the demographic contributions of adult

survival and recruitment rates to BCR-scale variation in MAPS population trends for 27

Nearctic-Neotropical migratory species using 12 years (1992-2003) of MAPS data

(Saracco and DeSante 2008). We found that recruitment tended to be about three times

as important as adult survival in driving spatial variation in population trends, but that

first year survival tended to be more important than productivity in driving recruitment. By

looking at the overall (program-wide) MAPS population trends for these 27 species,

however, we found that: first-year survival was the most important driver of spatial

variation in trend for species with significant population declines, both first-year and

adult survival were the most important drivers of spatial variation in trend for species

with significant population increases, and productivity was most important driver of

spatial variation in trend for species with non-significant (relatively stable) population

trends.

2021 MAPS Manual - 13

Using these same methods, we examined both annual and BCR-scale spatial variation in

the vital rates of 158 species of North American landbirds using 15 years (1992-2006) of

MAPS data, and presented the results on the Vital Rates of North American Landbirds

website (DeSante et al. 2015). For each of these 158 species, the site presents 1)

estimates of population change (lambda), adult apparent survival, recruitment, and

residency, along with indices of productivity, post-breeding effects, and adult population

density; 2) graphs showing annual variation and maps showing spatial variation in these

vital rates; and 3) the results of temporal and spatial pairwise correlations among these

vital rates. The website also includes species account narratives for these 158 species

that provide hypotheses regarding the proximate demographic drivers of the observed

temporal and spatial variation in their population changes, as well as suggestions as to

research and management efforts to reverse population declines and maintain stable or

increasing populations. These results also suggest that enhancing survival of both adult

and, especially, first-year birds, must be a very important conservation strategy for

slowing population declines and achieving stable populations. Because both first-year

and adult survival of migratory species may be driven primarily by processes acting on

the wintering ranges and migration routes of these species, identifying relationships

between these vital rates and both habitat characteristics and weather on the non-

breeding grounds may well be critical for successful conservation of migratory landbirds.

MAPS data, used in conjunction with data from the overwintering period provided by the

MoSI (Monitoreo de Sobrevivencia Invernal - Monitoring Overwintering Survival) and

additional information on migratory connectivity can provide insights regarding the

mechanisms whereby survival throughout the year can drive populations trends of

migratory birds (Saracco et al. 2009b).

In cooperation with researchers at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, we have

recently begun to incorporate Bayesian hierarchical spatial autoregressive models to

better describe spatial variation in adult apparent survival rates and residency

probabilities. To date, we have completed such analyses for American Robin, Wood

Thrush (Saracco et al. 2010), and Common Yellowthroat (Saracco et al. 2011). These

spatial models represent a significant advance over approaches to investigating spatial

patterns in vital rates that aggregate data at coarse spatial scales (such as the BCRs

described above) and do not explicitly incorporate spatial information in the models.

They tend to overcome, to some extent, difficulties caused by geographical areas (or

BCRs) with sparse data and by the non-random distribution of stations, can easily

accommodate missing data within the modeling framework, and permit MAPS data and

results to be included in models and analyses based on any previously or subsequently

established grid system. These important papers, which have appeared in Ecology

(Saracco et al. 2010) and the Journal of Ornithology (Saracco et al. 2012), indicate that

residency probability is often more spatially heterogeneous than survival and not

positively spatially correlated with survival. They thus illustrate the importance of

understanding the role of transients in local populations.

MAPS data has also helped determine how to truly define what a "population" is for a

bird species (Rushing et al. 2016). Many conservation plans and management strategies

work at the level of the population so this delineation is important, but should the

14 - 2021 MAPS Manual

population be defined geographically or biologically? In cooperation with researchers at

the Smithsonian Institution, an approach was developed for using Breeding Bird Survey

data to quantify geographic structure in trend and abundance, and identify distinct

natural populations for eight species of passerines. The researchers then used vital rates

derived from MAPS data to independently validate their method of population

delineation.

The MAPS program has also worked in cooperation with other programs to utilize the

continent wide range of stations to further other avian research. Using feather samples

collected by MAPS cooperators, scientists from the Bird Genoscape Project isolated

DNA and stable isotopes to map the connectivity of the breeding grounds to the

wintering grounds of several species, including Wilson’s Warbler (Ruegg et al. 2014).

Using this genetic data, six distinct populations of Wilson’s Warbler have been delineated

allowing scientists to concentrate conservation efforts in areas where declining

populations breed, migrate, and winter (Ruegg et al. 2020). Colorado State University

scientists utilized MAPS data to determine the impact of West Nile virus on survival rates

of 49 species, determining that for some landbird species the effect is short-lived for

some, but is persistent in others (George et al. 2015).

Even though MAPS is a breeding season program, using MAPS data, IBP scientists to

have been able to explore migration strategies of landbirds including to better

understand molt migration (Pyle et al. 2018).

We hope we have conveyed to you the importance of demographic monitoring and the

value of the MAPS Program. Each year, as more data accumulate from established

stations and as additional stations are established in new areas and new landscapes, the

power of the data for revealing spatial and temporal patterns in landbird demographic

parameters, and thus their usefulness for avian conservation, increases dramatically. We

hope also that we have conveyed some of the excitement and intense commitment we

feel regarding the role of MAPS in North American landbird conservation. Again, we invite

you to participate in this growing cooperative effort. But remember, MAPS may not be for

everyone. Yet, if your heart is thrilled by holding in your hands the life of a precious

warbler, thrush, or bunting, and knowing that you are providing data that will aid the

survival of its species, then maybe MAPS is for you!

2021 MAPS Manual - 15

ESTABLISHMENT AND GENERAL OPERATION OF MAPS

STATIONS

The following guidelines for the establishment and operation of MAPS stations will

optimize the usefulness of data obtained from MAPS stations. These guidelines conform

to those recommended for constant-effort mist netting in Ralph et al. (1993), and were

discussed in DeSante et al. (2004a). Because a major objective of the program is to

generate estimates of temporal variation in productivity and survivorship, standardization

in station operations from year-to-year and station continuity over a number of years are

critical. Continuity is also important for minimizing population-parameter fluctuations that

may result from year-to-year changes in the geographic distribution of stations. We

realize that, because of vagaries of weather and other uncontrollable factors, no station

will be able to achieve perfect standardization. Nevertheless, every attempt should be

made to follow these guidelines as closely as possible.

Although standardization and continuity are critical components of the MAPS Program,

the first year of operation at a MAPS station should be considered a pilot year;

nevertheless, all data from the first year should be submitted. Station boundaries and net

sites may be shifted during or after the first field season if problems arise or net sites

prove to be unproductive. Any such changes must be documented and reported, and no

further changes ought to be made after the start of the second field season. If net sites

are changed, the new net designations must differ from those of the discontinued sites.

Siting a MAPS station

It is important to keep in mind that the productivity indices generated at a MAPS station

provide a landscape-level, rather than site-specific, measure of productivity. This is

because the young birds captured by the MAPS protocol include many dispersing

individuals from the surrounding landscape, as well as a few individuals that may have

fledged from nests within the boundaries of the 20-ha MAPS study area. Data on the

dispersal characteristics of young and adult birds after the breeding season but before

fall migration are just now being obtained for a very few species from radio-telemetry

studies (Anders et al. 1997, Vega Rivera et al. 1998). These studies suggest that the

landscape from which the dispersing young originate may be on the order of several

thousand hectares (perhaps about 10,000-12,000 acres). Although management actions

occur on a site-specific basis, their effects on bird populations become pronounced only

when the specific management actions occur over substantial portions of the landscape.

The ability of MAPS to provide landscape-level information on productivity is one of the

unique strengths of the program. Thus, when siting MAPS stations to investigate the

effects of a particular habitat type or management action, it is important to consider the

habitat type or management characteristics of the overall landscape, that is, of the area

within perhaps a four-km (2.5-mile) radius of the station.

16 - 2021 MAPS Manual

It is also important to consider site-specific habitat characteristics when siting MAPS

stations as these can influence the extent to which dispersing young and adult birds

concentrate there. Recent work on forest-breeding species suggests that many

individuals, both young and adult, desert forest interior locations immediately after the

young attain independence from their parents and disperse to edge locations to molt and

stage before initiating fall migration (Anders et al. 1997, Vega Rivera et al. 1998). These

edge locations are generally characterized in mid to late summer by dense cover and an

abundance of food resources, often fruit. Indeed, we have found that mid-to-late-summer

capture rates of both adults and young are much lower at forest-interior MAPS stations

than at stations that contain forest-edge or scrub habitat (DeSante 1996). Because

productivity indices are calculated from the proportion of young in the mid-to-late-

summer catch, the precision of the resulting indices will tend to be lower at forest-interior

stations than at stations containing edge and scrub habitats. On the other hand, because

late spring and early summer capture rates of breeding adults are often high at forest-

interior stations, especially for forest-interior species, such stations can provide important

data for estimating adult survival rates.

As mentioned above, the goals of MAPS include identifying and describing spatial and

temporal patterns in demographic parameters; relating these to species-specific

population trends and life history strategies, habitat characteristics, and weather

variables; and using the resulting relationships to formulate management strategies for

reversing population declines. As such, MAPS stations are often sited under some

hypothesis-driven sampling strategy. Although we appreciate that MAPS stations can

only be sited where long-term standardized mist netting is practical and permissible, the

value of the data for testing hypotheses can often be enhanced if some elements of a

probability-based sampling strategy can be incorporated into the siting of stations. For

example, assume you are able to establish three stations in a nearby state park or forest

and are particularly interested in upland oak-hickory habitat. A promising strategy might

be to lay a suitably scaled grid over a GIS layer showing the distribution of upland oak-

hickory habitat within the park or forest, and randomly select 10-12 grid points that lie

within landscapes comprised primarily of that habitat. Then, examine the immediate

landscape around each grid point and try to identify a suitable MAPS-station site within

about one km of the point. If none is available around the first point, go on to each

successive point until three suitable sites have been identified. A suitable site would

include an area of about 20 ha (50 acres) within which long-term mist netting is both

practical and permissible and that lies at least partially in upland oak-hickory habitat, but

with some edge or scrub habitat as well. Remember, most of the dispersing young and

adult birds that will contribute to productivity indices will originate from the surrounding

landscape rather than from within the station itself. In contrast, the breeding adults that

will contribute to survivorship estimates will originate from the station itself.

With these concepts in mind, we offer the following guidelines for siting stations:

(1) If possible, try to use some elements of a probabilistic sampling strategy to site

stations within the selected landscape.

(2) Within the selected landscape, stations should be established at sites that are

expected to remain accessible and free of major anthropogenic disturbance for at least

2021 MAPS Manual - 17

five (preferably ten) consecutive years. Note that there can be disturbance, even heavy

disturbance, in the surrounding landscape. If there is disturbance at the station (or in the

landscape), it should be described through the Habitat Structure Assessment (see p. 23).

(3) Stations should be sited where substantial numbers of individuals of many of

the common species breeding in the area, or of a particular target species, can be

captured.

(4) In order to capture large numbers of dispersing young and adult birds, stations

should contain some edge habitat, such as a forest edge, riparian corridor, montane

meadow, or power-line right-of-way. Stations can be sited entirely in forest-interior

situations, but capture rates at such stations will likely be low.

(5) The habitat types at the station should be fairly representative of those present

in the surrounding landscape. Stations not representative of the landscape or at which

large numbers of transient or migrating birds concentrate (such as narrow points of land

jutting into large bodies of water, or isolated oases in desert or grassland habitats) should

be avoided.

(6) Because the derived population and demographic parameters are likely to be

highly sensitive to successional changes in the habitats sampled, stations generally

should be sited in relatively mature habitats or where the habitat is held in a lower

successional stage by active management. The latter type of station is particularly

desirable for the long-term monitoring of scrub- and/or second-growth-inhabiting species.

Stations sited in highly-successional habitats must be indicated as such so that habitat

change can be factored into analyses.

(7) In order to ensure standardization, MAPS stations may not incorporate any

artificial food or water sources such as feeders, compost piles, dumps, birdbaths,

fountains, and livestock pens. Audio playback calls should also not be used.

If you have the resources available to establish and operate more than one station, it

might be advantageous to select two (or more) sites of similar habitat within a few

kilometers (but further than one kilometer) from each other. Such an arrangement would

give greater precision to the population-parameter estimates for that habitat in that

region and might allow us to examine the extent of local dispersal and site fidelity.

Establishing a MAPS station

MAPS terminology: A MAPS “station” is a discrete study area consisting of a number of

net sites (“nets,” the exact places at which nets are located). Each station is given a name

and a four-character code (e.g., Copper Creek = COPP or COCR). Upon receipt of a

station’s first data submission, we will also assign the station a unique, five-digit station

number. Each station is part of a “location” that may contain other stations in the same

general area (e.g., on the same national forest, national park, military installation, or

nature reserve) operated by the same individual or organization. Each location is

identified by a four-character code (e.g., Fremont National Forest = FREM). If the location

18 - 2021 MAPS Manual

contains only a single station and is likely to remain that way, the location and station

codes generally are the same.

General configuration: An idealized MAPS station is roughly square or circular in shape

and encompasses an area of about 20 hectares (50 acres, about 450 meters on a side or

circular with a 250-meter radius; Fig. 2). Ten 12-meter mist nets are distributed more or

less uniformly but opportunistically (where birds will be caught) within a core area of

about eight hectares (20 acres, about 280 meters on a side or circular with a 160-meter

radius). The station includes everything within 100 meters of any net. If nets are

separated by more than 200 meters, the area between the nets (at least a 25-meter-wide

corridor) should also be considered as part of the station. Note that the nets are

numbered in a roughly circular arrangement; this reduces the likelihood of net numbers

being recorded incorrectly as the nets are checked consecutively. We realize that many

MAPS stations will not be situated in a study area that permits a square or circular

configuration. Some study areas may be quite irregular in shape and others, perhaps in

riparian habitats, may be long and narrow. In these cases, nets should be established as

uniformly and systematically as possible in order to cover the entire core area,

maintaining the recommended net density (see below) but still allowing each net run to

be completed in a reasonable time. Even in these cases, the station is considered to

include everything within 100 m of any net.

Mist nets (number): The number of nets utilized at a station should be the maximum

number (at the appropriate density) that can be operated safely and efficiently given the

personnel available to run the station. Thus, only the number of nets that can be operated

in a standardized manner over the long term should be established. In most instances,

ten 12-meter nets might be the optimal number that can be operated by one person or

two people. With a larger number of personnel or fewer birds, this number might be

increased to 15 or even 20 nets; the size of the station should be increased accordingly

so as to maintain the appropriate net density. With a smaller number of personnel and

more birds, this number might need to be decreased to six or seven nets over a smaller

area. The number and distribution of nets should be such that all the nets can be checked

within 15-20 minutes if there are no birds to extract (i.e., an empty net run). We have set

five as the minimum number of nets permissible at a station, since it is unlikely that really

useful data can be obtained from a station with fewer than five nets.

Mist nets (density): The density of nets is an important variable with regard to the

precision of the data that can be obtained from mark-recapture analyses. Net density will

affect both the number of different individuals captured C thus the population size

sampled C and the capture probabilities of those birds. Spreading the nets as widely as

possible will tend to increase the number of territories intersected, and thus the

population size sampled, but will tend to decrease the capture probability for the birds on

any given territory. Moving the nets closer together will do the reverse. Thus, there must

be some optimal intermediate density of nets that will maximize precision by optimizing

simultaneously both the capture probability and the population size sampled. This

optimal density may vary from species to species and from station to station depending

upon average densities and territory sizes of the various species. Analyses of MAPS data

indicate that stations that produce both high capture probabilities and high capture rates

2021 MAPS Manual - 19

operate with net densities of about one to two nets per hectare. We suggest that the

optimal density of nets for most MAPS target species may be about 1.25 to 1.5 nets per

hectare. Thus, ten nets could be placed effectively in a study area of about seven or eight

hectares. With nets placed at this density, the distance between adjacent nets will

average about 75-100 meters. In general, except in steep, rugged terrain, visiting ten nets

placed 75-100 meters apart in 15-20 minutes should present no problem. The size of the

netting area may need to be reduced (and the consequent net density increased) for

stations established in steep, rugged terrain so that an empty net run can be completed

within the allotted 15-20 minutes.

Mist nets (placement): Nets should be placed opportunistically at sites at which birds can

be captured most efficiently, such as the brushy portions of wooded areas, forest breaks

FIGURE 2. Diagram of an idealized MAPS station.

20 - 2021 MAPS Manual

or edges, and in the vicinity of water. The establishment of net sites at a station should

strike a balance between the conflicting needs of capturing substantial numbers of

breeding adults for estimating adult survival rates and substantial numbers of dispersing

young and adults for indexing productivity. This may best be achieved by placing nets in

both edge and non-edge portions of the study area. To optimize both the number of birds

captured and their capture probabilities, nets should be placed relatively uniformly over

the available habitat at each station. Because it is not permissible to move nets after the

start of the second field season, care must be taken to select optimally-efficient,

permanent net sites. Care also should be taken to ensure the safety of captured birds by

not placing nets low over water or at sites subject to extreme wind or heat. Nets stacked

two high or placed end-to-end in batteries are acceptable but not recommended, as they

double the netting effort but generally don’t double the number of captures. Although

artificial food and water sources are not permissible within stations, they may exist

adjacent to stations on property not under the control of the MAPS operator; remember

that the station boundaries extend outward 100 meters from the net. Once the net sites

are established, choose and flag a fixed net-run route that will minimize travel time to all

nets, and number the nets sequentially along this route. Net designations should be

numeric, unique within a station, and two characters long (e.g., 01, 02, 10). Remember

that nets within batteries and stacked nets must be numbered individually.

Mist nets (size, type, and mesh size): We strongly recommend that all nets used in the

MAPS Program be 12-meter, 30-mm mesh, four-tier, black, tethered, nylon mist nets.

Other sizes, types, and meshes may be used if local conditions so warrant, but these

variables should remain constant at each net site over all periods and years that the

station is operated. One 12-meter net operated for one hour represents an effort of 1.0

net hour. Thus, if nets of other sizes are used, the effort reported must be adjusted

accordingly. For example, a nine-meter net operated for one hour would be counted as

0.75 net hour.

Operating a MAPS station

Station registration: Before taking up station operations, a station registration form

should be submitted for each station. The information on the form provides us with

contact information for the station operator or operators. It also provides us with

information on the station’s geographic setting, critical for accessing remotely sensed

data covering the station, and information on intended station operations. Once we

receive a registration form for a station, the station operator or operators are added to the

mailing list for the anticipated initial banding season. Refer to pages 21-24 for detailed

instructions.

Banding - dates of operation: MAPS is strictly a breeding-season study. The breeding

season, in general, is considered to extend from May to August and is divided into ten

10-day periods: (1) May 1-10; (2) May 11-20; (3) May 21-30; (4) May 31-June 9; (5) June

10-19; (6) June 20-29; (7) June 30-July 9; (8) July 10-19; (9) July 20-29; and (10) July

30-August 8. The strategy for the timing of operation is that each station should be

operated for all ten-day periods beginning with the first period during which (a) the great

2021 MAPS Manual - 21

majority of the breeding adults of the target species have established territories; and (b)

individuals of these species migrating toward more northerly breeding grounds are no

longer passing through the area. The start of operation will vary, therefore, from station to

station depending on the timing of the breeding season at each station, which, in turn, is

dependent primarily on latitude and altitude but also, to some extent, on longitude. Refer

to Figure 3 for the recommended starting period at your location. Note that the starting

period for stations at higher altitudes may have to be delayed by one (or, in years of

exceptionally heavy and late-melting snowpack, even two) period(s) after the period

indicated in Figure 3. In years in which late-melting snowpack do cause a delay in the

initiation of breeding, the operation of periods subsequent to the starting period may also

have to be delayed somewhat, more so earlier than later in the season. Nevertheless, it is

extremely important that the number of periods during which the station is operated be

held constant at each station for all years.

It is also important not to begin the operation of a MAPS station before migrating

individuals of the locally-breeding species, bound for breeding areas farther north, have

Period 5

Period 3

Period 5

Period 4

Period 2

Period 1

Period 2

Period 1

Period 4

Period 3

FIGURE 3. Recommended starting periods for MAPS stations. Appropriate periods

for stations at high elevation stations may be later than indicated on the maps.

Stations in habitats adjoining the Gulf of Mexico may start in Period 1.

22 - 2021 MAPS Manual

finished moving through the area. These birds, if captured, will bias estimates of the

proportion of residents in the adult population as well as productivity indices. The

presence of such spring migrant individuals will also tend to lower the precision of all

these estimates. Furthermore, the locally-breeding adults of any given species are usually

the first individuals to arrive at a given location and, if captured before the start of the

MAPS data-collection period, may learn to avoid the nets. Elimination from analysis of

banding data collected before the official start of the season will tend to negatively bias

adult survival rates, because most breeding adults are captured early in the season and

net avoidance may prevent their recapture. Thus, in general, spring-migration monitoring

should not be conducted at MAPS stations. If operators must run a spring-migration

monitoring program and a MAPS program in the same place, they must use different net

sites for the two programs.

Collection of MAPS data should be curtailed before substantial numbers of individuals (of

the locally-breeding species) that are migrating south from breeding areas farther to the

north begin to pass through the station. Inclusion of these individuals in productivity

analyses will produce productivity indices that will tend to be more representative of

areas farther north than of the local landscape. Analyses conducted on data from the

four-year (1992-1995) MAPS pilot project indicated that substantial numbers of migrating

individuals (as determined from the fat contents of the banded birds) began moving

through most areas, regardless of latitude, after Period 10 (July 30 - August 8) (DeSante

et al. 2004a). As a result, MAPS protocol now calls for the operation of all MAPS stations

through Period 10 each year, but not thereafter.

In contrast to the situation in spring, however, it is not necessary to actually curtail the

operation of the station late in the season before fall migrants begin passing through the

area. Rather, the station can be operated after Period 10 and data from these later

periods can be removed from analysis after the fact. This is because very few, if any,

breeding adults are captured for the first time late in the season and the elimination of

data from these periods will not affect survival-rate estimates. Thus, a station can use the

same nets for fall-migration monitoring as for MAPS monitoring without compromising

the value of the MAPS data. Indeed, analyses of age ratios from successively later

periods during fall-migration monitoring will provide measures of productivity from areas

increasingly farther north. It is very important to note, however, that if MAPS nets are

operated outside of the breeding season, such operation must be discontinued at least

three months prior to the beginning of the appropriate starting period for that station. This

will assure that net avoidance by breeding individuals of permanent resident species will

not bias survival-rate estimates for these species.

Effort data: Effort data are critical for comparing capture rates among years and for

assessing both productivity indices and population trends. Because daily activity patterns

differ both by age class and species, period-by-period, net-by-net, and hour-by-hour effort

data are necessary for comparing productivity levels among years and for estimating

numbers of birds missed because of missing effort. These data should be summarized

on the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort form. Refer to pages 31-38 for detailed

instructions regarding effort at MAPS stations.

2021 MAPS Manual - 23

Breeding Status data: The goal of the Breeding Status List is to provide a complete

assessment of the summer residency status of all species present at each station each

season. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to record observations of the nesting

behavior, singing, and overall presence of each species during each visit to the station.

These data should be summarized on the Breeding Status List. Refer to pages 69-76 for

detailed instructions.

Habitat Structure Assessment (HSA) data: The habitat structure assessment data serve

three main functions: they provide a classification for each station, permit detection of

gross changes in habitat structure at the station that may explain changes in population

demographics, and provide station-specific habitat data to complement remotely-sensed

landscape data at a fine resolution. HSA’s should be conducted every five years, unless

the habitat at your station has undergone a major change (e.g., fire, hurricane, logging,

construction, brush-clearing, etc.). Please refer to the separate Habitat Structure

Assessment Protocol (Nott et al. 2003b) for detailed instructions.

Instructions and data forms: Operators of registered stations will receive a beginning-of-

season letter from The Institute for Bird Populations in early April each year. This will also

direct new operators to download a copy of the MAPS Manual; the Habitat Structure

Assessment Protocol; MAPSPROG, our computer data entry and verification program.

Operators who have submitted data in the past will receive a printout of the overall

breeding status of all species ever captured or encountered at their stations and a

summary of the information we have for their stations. All operators will be asked to

download blank copies of the following data forms: Banding, Unbanded, and Recaptures

banding-data sheets, the Standard Net Opening and Closing Times form (first year of

operation only), the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort, the Summary of Mist-Netting Results,

the Breeding Status List, and the forms associated with the Habitat Structure

Assessment. They should also download a description of our collaboration with the

Center for Tropical Research and the Bird Genoscape Project, which explains the optional

feather-pulling protocol.

It is the operators’ responsibility each year to make as many copies of the forms as they

will need that year. Unused forms should be discarded at the end of the season because

they may become obsolete the following year.

Recording data and making corrections: All data should be recorded in dark, water stable

(i.e. not gel pen) ink. If you make corrections on any data sheet, use fast-drying correction

fluid or correction tape. Do NOT just write over errors.

The use of MAPSPROG

MAPSPROG is a Windows-based computer program for entry/import, editing, verification,

and error tracking of MAPS data (Froehlich et al. 2006). It offers contributors the

opportunity to computerize their MAPS banding data; edit coding problems (codes that

do not conform to IBP’s preferred codes set forth in this manual); and address and

correct, if applicable, within-record inconsistences (conflicts between codes within a

record, such as juvenile birds with breeding condition or after hatching year birds with no

24 - 2021 MAPS Manual

skull pneumatization) and between-record inconsistencies (conflicts in species, age, or

sex determinations in different capture records for a given band number). The verification

procedures encoded in the program reflect the MAPS data-collection guidelines

described in this manual and ageing and sexing criteria presented in Pyle (1997) for the

months covered by the MAPS season.

By providing a data entry/editing/verification program to contributors, IBP hopes to

decentralize the process of data correction, returning it to the control of those who

collected the data and who should, therefore, be better situated to make necessary

corrections and adjustments. As a result, we hope that the quality of MAPS data overall

will improve and that contributors, by verifying their own data, will be better able to

identify areas in which they can improve their data-collection techniques in future

seasons. We highly recommend using MAPSPROG during the field season to enter and

verify within-record consistency to improve data collection as the season progresses.

MAPSPROG integrates data entry modules for Banding, Effort, Breeding Status, and

Habitat Structure data.

MAPS data-use policy

Data contributed to the MAPS program will be used by IBP to further the mission and

goals of the MAPS program, as detailed on pages 6-11 of the MAPS Manual. These goals

include providing estimates and indices of demographic parameters, linking demographic

parameters to population trends and environmental variables (e.g., habitat, climate), and

providing information to land managers that will help create and maintain habitats to

conserve and enhance North American landbird populations. Individual MAPS

contributors will be acknowledged by name in any IBP publication or report arising from

the use of MAPS data whenever their data represent more than 5% of the MAPS data

used in that publication or report, and will be offered co-authorship whenever their data

represent a substantial proportion (more than 30%) of the MAPS data used in that

publication or report.

The MAPS database is the most extensive database on landbird demographics in North

America and represents an invaluable scientific resource of immense conservation

potential. As such, IBP is eager to share this resource with outside researchers, provided

that the proposed research has well-defined objectives and does not impinge on current

or planned IBP research projects. Requests for data should be submitted in writing and

should include clearly defined objectives for the use of the MAPS data. Researchers who

anticipate requesting MAPS data are encouraged to contact Danielle Kaschube, MAPS

Coordinator, dkaschube@birdpop.org (609-892-0445), to discuss their request and details

of the MAPS database prior to submitting their written request. All requests for MAPS

data require approval by an IBP research scientist, who will also be available to provide

advice on the feasibility of the proposed research. If 20% or more of the MAPS data

requested by a researcher will come from any single MAPS contributor, IBP will forward

the written request to that contributor for permission to use those data. IBP also requests

that publications or reports using MAPS data acknowledge the MAPS Program and IBP

as the source of the MAPS data, and acknowledge individual MAPS contributors by name

2021 MAPS Manual - 25

whenever their data represent more than 5% of the MAPS data used in that publication or

report. We request that researchers offer co-authorship of any publication or report using

MAPS data to individuals whose data represent a substantial proportion (more than 30%)

of the entire data set used in that publication or report. Finally, we request that a copy of

the final publication or report be sent to The Institute for Bird Populations (a PDF version

is fine) so that it can be archived and included on The Institute for Bird Populations

publications page: http://www.birdpop.org/pages/pubsDatabase.php.

An example of some language for an acknowledgement could be:

We thank the many dedicated volunteers who have collected and donated these data to the

MAPS program. We also thank The Institute for Bird Populations for developing the MAPS

Program and curating the MAPS data. Data used in this analysis were made available via

funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant EF 1703048).

By submitting your MAPS data, you are allowing your data to be included in analyses

completed by IBP and non-IBP researchers who make data requests. Although we

assume that our data-use policy will be followed and you will be acknowledged and

offered co-authorship when appropriate, we cannot guarantee our policy will be followed

once data are distributed to non-IBP researchers.

26 - 2021 MAPS Manual

STATION REGISTRATION

Joining the MAPS Program

If you are interested in establishing one or more MAPS stations and feel that you

are able to meet our requirements, please contact the MAPS Coordinator, Danielle

Kaschube, at The Institute for Bird Populations at dkaschu[email protected] or at 609-892-

0445. You will be sent a registration form on which you will detail the proposed location,

habitat, and operation of your station (Fig. 4). Subject to approval of your proposal, you

will be added to the roster of active MAPS operators and will receive the necessary forms

and instructions, as well as annual reports on the results of the program and the

program’s newsletter, MAPS Chat. Please register each MAPS station with the Institute

for Bird Populations before initiating operations. This helps us plan and budget

accordingly and ensures that you receive program and protocol updates.

Instructions for completing the MAPS Station Registration Form

Date: Record the date the form is completed.

Station Manager Contact Information:

Name: The name of the station manager, the person in charge of the MAPS station and

responsible for seeing that changes in forms and protocol are communicated to all

persons helping at the station. This will be IBP’s official contact person to whom mailings

and phone calls with data questions will be addressed and who will be acknowledged in

publications and reports. Please keep us up-to-date concerning changes in contact

information or responsibilities.

Title: The job title of the station manager within the organization, if any, with which the

station is affiliated.

Affiliated Organization: The organization, if any, with which the station is affiliated.

Address and phone numbers: The mailing and e-mail addresses and phone numbers for

the station manager.

Federal Banding Permit #: Provide the federal bird banding permit number under which

the station will be operated. If you haven’t yet received your federal permit, write “in

process” in this space and provide the permit number once you have been approved.

Contact Information for an Additional Station Operator: You may provide contact

information for another individual with station operation responsibilities on this form.

Both operators will be included in our mailing lists and receive mailings concerning

station operations. Often, secondary operators are staff biologists, technicians, students,

or volunteers who play a critical role in conducting the banding station field work. If more

than two individuals should be associated with this station, please provide the additional

names and contact information via email at the time the registration form is submitted.

2021 MAPS Manual - 27

Location Code: A unique, four-character code which you may select to designate your set

of stations. If the code you propose conflicts with established MAPS location codes, we

will contact you to discuss an alternative.

Station Code: A unique, four-character code which you may select to designate your

station. For single-station locations, this is typically identical to the location code. If the

code you propose conflicts with established MAPS station codes, we will contact you to

discuss an alternative.

Name of Station: The full name of your station; please try to keep it short (four words or

fewer).

Funding Source(s): List government agencies, non-governmental organizations,

foundations, and grants providing financial support for station operation. Use “private” if

the station is self-financed or if private individuals provide funding.

Property Name: The name of the piece of land on which the station is located. Please be

precise in listing the property name e.g., Wenatchee National Forest; Kittitas County

Environmental Educational Center; or Starr Ranch Sanctuary. If the property is owned by

an individual or family, just write “private property”.

Land Owner: The owner of the land on which the station is located. Please be precise in

listing the land owner, i.e., for a station in Wenatchee National Forest, the "United States

Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Naches Ranger District"; for Kittitas County

Environmental Education Center, "Kittitas County School District" rather than just Kittitas

County; or for the Starr Ranch Sanctuary, "Audubon California" rather than just Audubon

Society. If the land is owned by an individual or family, just write “private”.

Nearest Town: Indicate the nearest reasonably sized community, as the neotropical

migrant flies, on state-level road map or web application such as Google Earth.

County: This equates to parishes in LA, boroughs in AK, etc. Western provinces please

indicate your regional or municipal district.

Latitude and Longitude: Please provide the lat/long coordinates in degrees, minutes, and

seconds to the nearest second for the center of the station; please convert UTM

coordinates and lat/longs given in decimals (many GPS units give seconds in decimals).

North American longitudes are negative (except in the outer Aleutians).

Source of lat-long coordinates: The information source from which you determined the

lat/long coordinates of the center of the station (e.g., Google Earth, hard copy of

topographic map, online topographic map, GPS unit, etc.).

Datum: The reference point around which latitude and longitude are structured. If using a

topographic map created before 1983 this will be NAD27. If using a topographic map

created after 1983, a GPS unit, or online mapping information, the datum will be available

somewhere on the source. (Google Earth uses NAD83.)

Average Altitude: The station’s average altitude (elevation) in meters (1m=3.280833ft).

Please do not give us a range.

28 - 2021 MAPS Manual

2021 MAPS STATION REGISTRATION FORM Date: February 20,2021

Please refer to the instructions in the current MAPS Manual when completing this

form.

Station Manager Contact Information

Name: ______Joe Smith ______________ Title: ____Biologist_________________

Affiliated Organization: Bird Park County Park ______________

Address: Charles County Parks and Rec.

456 Main St., Grayton, MD 20678

Phone numbers: Work: 301-555-4444 Home or Cell: 301-556-2222

E-mail: [email protected] _________ Federal Banding Permit # __12345____

You may also provide contact information for another individual with station operation

responsibilities here. To add additional people, please submit a separate list of their contact

information when the registration form is submitted:

Name: _____ Sam Jones ______________ Title: ______________________________________

Affiliated Organization: Maryland Ornithological Society ___ __

Address: ___123 State St._________________________________________ ___

_____ Port Tobacco, MD 20677_________________________________

Phone numbers: Work: 301-654-3333 Home or Cell: 301-558-4141

E-mail: ____ [email protected] ____________ Federal Banding Permit # __12345 - CX

Station Information

(pick up to 4 letters for each; the two codes may be the same)

Location Code: __BIPA_________ Station Code: __SMCR_________

Name of Station: ________ Small Creek___________________________________

Funding Source(s): __ Charles County _____________________________________

Property Name: __ Bird Park County Park __________________________________

Land Owner: __ Charles County Parks and Recreation ________________________

Nearest Town: __ Grayton ________ County: __Charles___ State/Province: _MD__

2021 MAPS Manual - 29

Please include latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, seconds; to the nearest second.

Latitude: 38



26' 20" Longitude: -077



10' 41"

Source of lat/long coordinates: eg. GPS, Google Earth, etc. _______ Google Earth ______

Datum: NAD27 – or – √ WGS84/NAD83 (check one)

Average Altitude (in m): __11_________

General Habitat Description (e.g., “Mixed woodland in suburbia”; “cottonwood-willow riparian

corridor”): __ mixed deciduous forest and riparian corridor _________________

Please include a map showing the position of the station relative to nearby towns, major

roads, and other geographic features; maps that are ideal for this purpose can be

produced for free using Google Earth (free at www.earth.google.com).

Station Operation

First year of operation (expected): 2021

Number of nets: 10

Number of hours of operation per day (We recommend six): 6

Number of days of operation per ten-day period (We recommend one): 1

Periods of operation: From Period 3 through Period 10 .

DATA-USE POLICY

Please refer to the MAPS Manual to read the full data-use policy.

In summary, if you submit data to the MAPS program your data will be made available for

analysis by both IBP and other researchers, upon request.

JS Initial here to indicate awareness of this policy

To ensure receiving a timely spring packet of data sheets and information, submit this form

by April 1 to Danielle Kaschube, dka[email protected]. Forms submitted after April 1 are

still valid but may delay receiving the beginning-of-season materials.

FIGURE 4. Completed MAPS Station Registration Form.

30 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Please include two maps: 1) a map on which the location of the station is clearly marked

relative to nearby towns, roads, and other geographic features. 2) a map on which the

exact location of the station is clearly marked relative to habitat features. Maps that are

ideal for this purpose can be produced for free by using Google Earth (downloadable for

free at www.earth.google.com. Having the “eye alt” [bottom left of Google screen] at

about 100 kms usually provides a good scale for the first map and about 1-2 kms usually

provides a good scale for the second map.)

First year of operation (expected): Please indicate the year in which you plan to begin

operating your station.

General Habitat Description: Using key words, provide a brief description of the habitats

at the station. Some examples: “Spruce-fir forest/meadow with willow thickets” or

“Cottonwood riparian corridor/desert scrub” or “Maple-basswood forest with kettlehole

marsh,” etc.

Number of nets: The optimal density appears to be about one net for every two acres in

the 20-acre core of the study area. The minimum number of nets permitted is five (see

“Establishing a MAPS station,” above). Note: a six-meter net = 0.5 net

Number of hours/day and days/period: In order to provide maximum comparability

among stations, we strongly recommend six hours of operation per day (beginning at

local sunrise) and only one day of operation per 10-day period.

Periods of operation: See Figure 3 for appropriate starting period. All stations should run

through Period 10. High-altitude stations may start one or even two periods later as

appropriate. MAPS net sites should not be used in the spring before the appropriate

starting period, since spring banding activity at MAPS net sites may induce net avoidance

among resident birds for the remainder of the breeding season (see “Establishing a MAPS

station,” above).

Data-use Policy: Initial to indicate that you have seen and agree to the IBP data-use

policy.

2021 MAPS Manual - 31

MIST-NETTING EFFORT

Operation of nets

The importance of standardizing effort between periods and between years cannot be

overemphasized. The accuracy and precision of MAPS indices and estimates depends

on effort being equal, both in quantity and in timing, in all periods and all years. Thus, the

number of nets operated and the timing of their operation should be standardized for all

days of operation and kept constant from year to year at each station.

The first net should be opened at official local sunrise or at 0400, whichever is later;

thus, starting time will change during the course of the season. The nets should be

opened in the same sequence on each day of operation. If possible, they also should be

checked in this same sequence on every net run. They should remain open, if possible,

for exactly six hours and should be closed in the sequence in which they were opened.

At stations being operated in hot climates, it may be necessary to close nets earlier than

six hours after opening and to open nets earlier in the morning, but no more than 30

minutes before sunrise. Effort for a given day may be shifted up to 30 minutes early or

late (relative to the standard at the station) if circumstances demand it. Nets never

should be opened more than 30 minutes before sunrise nor be closed any later than 30

minutes after the standard closing time for the station. Nets should not be operated if

the average wind speed exceeds ten knots or gusts exceed 20 knots (the tiers of the net

will be blown into concave ‘C’s) or if other weather variables (e.g., precipitation or

extreme heat or cold) are likely to endanger the lives of captured birds. Efforts to lure or

drive birds into nets are not permitted.

Frequency of mist-netting effort

MAPS nets should be operated on only one day during each ten-day period, and the

dates of operation in consecutive ten-day periods should be fairly far apart (in general,

at least six days). While it is true that increasing the number of days of operation in each

ten-day period will tend to increase the resulting capture probabilities, the payoff from

this increase seems to fall off rapidly after two or three days of operation. Although two

days per ten-day period may offer the best return on capture probability per effort spent,

the two days certainly will be spent better by operating two different stations for one day

each and thereby effectively doubling the total number of birds handled. Thus, if the

personnel at a given station have the ability to operate on multiple days in each ten-day

period, we strongly recommend the operation of multiple stations for one day each, even

if the stations must be adjacent to each other (Burton and DeSante 2004). Only for

certain experimental stations and other already-established stations that have a long

history of operating on more than one day per ten-day period will multiple days of

operation per period be accepted. In these cases, the number of days of operation

during each period should, if possible, be standardized for all periods; the total effort

and timing, however, must be kept consistent from year to year at each station.

32 - 2021 MAPS Manual

MAPS Periods and Intended Periods

The primary assumption of MAPS effort standardization is that banding effort at any

time during a given period is equivalent to effort at any other time during the same

period. Refer to pages 20-22, ‘Banding C dates of operation’ for clarifications of the

MAPS Periods. Generally, banding effort in the middle of the period is likely to best

approximate the proportion of young to adults prevailing for that period. However, any

banding effort within the span of ten days that comprises that period is considered to be

an appropriate estimator of that proportion.

Circumstances will occasionally make it impossible to conduct banding effort within the

defined ten-day period. If it is impossible to put in the effort for a given period within the

period itself, the station may be operated within five days before or after the period in

question. For example, an operator who knows she/he will not be able to band during

Period 3 due to prior engagements, may band for Period 3 as early as May 16, but no

earlier. Even though the date May 16 falls in the range of Period 2, the effort is intended

for Period 3. As another example, suppose your station starts operation in Period 3, but

due to thunderstorms during this ten-day block, you are unable to band. You will need to

make-up this effort by running the station no later than June 4. In this case, even though

the date June 4 falls in Period 4, the effort is intended for Period 3.

This effectively lengthens the MAPS season by five days on either end; thus, all data

collected at MAPS nets from April 26 to August 13 should be submitted.

At higher altitudes in western mountains (generally above about 2,000 m), the entire

season may need to be shifted up to ten, or even 20, days later if a heavy late-lingering

snowpack delays the onset of breeding. This is a rare situation, but operators at such

stations may decide to delay the entire operation of their station by one or even two

periods in that year, thus completing station operation in Period 11 or 12. These

operators are, in effect, banding during Period 4 (or Period 5) for Intended Period 3, etc.

In this case, the season may extend as late as August 23, or even September 2 (allowing

for the five-day grace period at the end of the period). If you are unable to put in the

effort for Periods 9 or 10 within the allowable time frame, please try to make up the

effort as soon as possible, but certainly well before the end of August. Periods 9 and 10

are critical periods for calculating productivity indices, and we may be able to use data

from later in August to make up the missing effort.

Alternatively, MAPS operators may decide to delay operations by one or two periods at

the beginning of the season, then gradually “catch up” to normal or near normal station

operation, and complete late in Period 10 or in Period 11. This is the preferred method of

shifting effort, as neotropical migrants in years of phenological delay tend to speed up

the breeding season by shortening the time between broods or between nesting

attempts in order to leave the breeding range shortly after they would have left in a

normal breeding season. In such a situation, banding should extend no later than Period

11, and the number of days between banding sessions should be decreased, and remain

relatively equal, over the course of the season. For example, for a station that normally

begins operation in Period 3 (May 21- 30), but instead begins in Period 5 (June 10-19 -

essentially 20 days late) and plans to continue banding through Period 11 (August 9-18 -

2021 MAPS Manual - 33

essentially 10 days late), there are only seven periods - or 70 days - in which to conduct

eight sessions of banding. Thus, banding should occur approximately every 8-9 (8.75)

days, rather than every 10 days, over the course of the season, ending in Period 11.

Making up missed effort

If nets are closed early or opened late (relative to the standard at the station) due to

inclement weather or unforeseen circumstances, the missing hours should be recovered

if possible. This may entail either ending the day late (but no more than 30 minutes) as

shown in Figure 6 for Intended Period 7, or making up the missed effort on another day

within the same ten-day period as shown in Figure 6 for Intended Period 5. You must

make up this effort if the missing effort amounts to more than half of a normal day’s

operation. For example, assume a normal full day’s operation is 60 net hours (ten 12-

meter nets open for six hours). On one particular day, however, the nets are opened at

0600 but have to be closed at 0830 due to rain. Only 25 net hours have been

accumulated. If the nets can be reopened at 0900, they should be closed at 1230 to

recover the lost 30 minutes (5 net hours). If, however, it continues raining beyond 0900,

the remaining 35 net hours should be made up as soon as possible during the

appropriate hours (0830-1200) on another day within that period. If circumstances will

prevent your return later in the intended period to make up the lost effort, then reopen

the nets later in the morning, conditions permitting, to accumulate as much effort as

possible (and at least half a normal day’s operation) for that intended period (as shown

for Intended Period 7 in Figure 6).

Minimum allowable effort

For the purposes of MAPS analyses, we divide the MAPS season into two

“superperiods,” an adult superperiod, during which adults usually predominate in the

catch, and a young superperiod, during which young often predominate. For a given

location, the dates of these superperiods depend on the recommended starting period

for that location (Fig. 3). Table 1 lists the adult and young superperiods for each starting

period. For data from a given station-year to be useable in MAPS analyses, the station

must have been operated for a minimum of three periods during the adult superperiod

and a minimum of two periods during the young superperiod. Please note that for

stations having a recommended start in Periods 4 or 5, absolutely no periods may be

missed during the young superperiod (Periods 9 and 10). Please also keep in mind that

all stations should be run from the recommended starting period through Period 10.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Adult and young MAPS superperiods.

Recommended start Adult superperiod Young superperiod

Period 1 (May 1-10) Periods 1-6 (May 1-Jun. 29) Periods 7-10 (Jun. 30-Aug. 8)

Period 2 (May 11-20) Periods 2-7 (May 11-July 9) Periods 8-10 (July 10-Aug. 8)

Period 3 (May 21-30) Periods 3-7 (May 21-July 9) Periods 8-10 (July 10-Aug. 8)

Period 4 (May 31-Jun. 9) Periods 4-8 (May 31-July 19) Periods 9-10 (July 20-Aug. 8)

Period 5 (Jun. 10-19) Periods 5-8 (Jun. 10-July 19) Periods 9-10 (July 20-Aug. 8)

____________________________________________________________________________________

34 - 2021 MAPS Manual

STANDARD NET OPENING AND CLOSING TIMES

In order to assist operators in timing the operation of their nets consistently from year to

year, the Standard Net Opening and Closing Times sheet (Fig. 5) provides space for

filling in local sunrise times and the net-opening and -closing schedule you intend to

follow. This information is essential for analyses of effort comparability across years

and for corrections for missed effort. In addition, should station operations be passed

on to someone else, this information will provide the new operators and their volunteers

with the times at which the nets are to be operated each period.

Typically, the standard opening time is local sunrise and the standard closing time is six

hours later. Operation at some stations may deviate from this schedule consistently,

year after year. In hot climates, for example, nets may need to be opened before sunrise.

In cold climates, nets may need to be opened after sunrise, as shown in Periods 3 and 4

in Figure 5. In either case, the standard opening time should be no more than 30 minutes

earlier or later than sunrise.

To make it easier to coordinate with banding assistants, the change from period to

period in the standard opening times you designate may deviate from sunrise by 10-20

minutes, as demonstrated in Periods 8 and 10 in Figure 5. Fill out this form only once

and submit a copy of the completed form to IBP with your data packet at the end of the

season; please resubmit the form in future seasons only if you must change your

standards.

Instructions for completing the Standard Net Opening and Closing

Times form

Operators Name: Record the name of the MAPS Station Manager.

Location: Record your four-character location code.

Station: Record your four-character station code.

Date: Record the date the form is completed.

Sunrise: In the ‘Period’ field, record the sunrise time for your station for each period that

you normally operate. Enter the sunrise time for the dates indicated in the period column

(roughly, the mid-period dates), not the sunrise times for the dates you ran this season.

U.S. sunrise tables are available free on the Web at

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.html . Once on the web-site, Form A

provides sunrise times for entries of city/town and state, while Form B provides sunrise

times for lat/long coordinates.

Standard Open and Standard Close: Following the guidelines given above, record the

standard opening and closing times for your nets in each period. Be sure to record the

standard open and standard close times you intend to open and close your nets each

2021 MAPS Manual - 35

period for your station every season; these times are not necessarily the times your nets

were actually operated in any given season.

___________________________________________________________________________________

MAPS STANDARD NET OPENING AND CLOSING TIMES

Location: BIPA Station: SMCR Date: 08/13/2021

Station Manager: Joe Smith

Period

Standard Open

Standard Close

1 Sunrise 05/05:

_______

2 Sunrise 05/15:

_______

3 Sunrise 05/25:

0550

1150

4 Sunrise 06/04:

0545

0550

1150

5 Sunrise 06/14:

0544

0540

1140

6 Sunrise 06/24:

0546

0550

1150

7 Sunrise 07/04:

0550

1150

8 Sunrise 07/14:

0557

0600

1200

9 Sunrise 07/24:

0604

0600

1200

10 Sunrise 08/03:

0613

0610

1210

FIGURE 5. Completed MAPS Standard Net Opening and Closing Times form.

36 - 2021 MAPS Manual

SUMMARY OF EFFORT

The Summary of Mist-Netting Effort is the only information available that allows us to

analyze between-year changes in mist-netting data in a constant-effort manner. It is

critical that this form be completed exactly as indicated. Please review this section of

the manual carefully before filling out the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort forms. The

most common problems that we encounter are unspecified net number(s), unspecified

timing (to the nearest ten minutes) of the opening and closing of the net(s), and net-hour

calculations. Remember, the opening and closing times you should record are the times

which you started the net runs to open or close the nets and should be recorded in the

same format as capture times. Also, please be sure to double-check all net-hour

calculations. All effort at MAPS nets from Intended Period 1 through Intended Period 10

[including August data for stations at higher altitudes that were delayed by one (or, in

years of exceptionally heavy and late-melting snowpacks, even two) period(s)] must be

recorded on the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort forms (Fig. 6), including any effort

conducted before the recommended starting period. Banding data submitted for

Intended Periods 11(August 9-18) and 12 (August 19-28) must also be accompanied by

effort data.

MAPSPROG incorporates a module to enter all effort data; program checks ensure that

all MAPS season banding records occurred on days the nets were actually operated.

Instructions for completing the Summary of Mist-Netting Effort form

Location: Record your four-character location code.

Station: Record your four-character station code.

List net numbers of all 12-m nets: Record the net designations of all 12 meter nets.

List net numbers and lengths of all other nets: Record the net designations and lengths

of all other nets. If you do not operate other length nets, please indicate by recording

“N/A” or “none.”

If any nets are stacked, list their net numbers and how stacked: For example, nets 02

and 03 stacked: 02-low and 03-high.

Describe net changes from last year: Indicate any previously operated nets that were

not operated in the current year and any new nets added. Please note that any moved

nets will require new net numbers.

MAPS season shift due to heavy snowpack at high elevation stations: See page 31 for

a complete explanation of when this rare season shift may be necessary.

Intended Period: Record the intended period for the date operated. Remember, if it is

impossible to put in the effort for a given period within the period itself, it may be done

within five days before or after that period. If the date operated falls outside the

2021 MAPS Manual - 37

standard ten-day period, include a note explaining why the operation did not occur in the

standard ten-day period.

Date: Record the month and day of the date of operation.

Net Numbers: Record the net designations of the nets operated (not the quantity of nets

opened). A single day’s effort should be recorded on multiple lines if nets of different

sizes are used or if the nets are open for varying periods of time. For example, if all ten

nets were opened at 0600 and nets 08 and 09 were closed at 1000 due to sun or wind

while the remaining eight were closed as planned at 1200, then the effort should be

recorded on at least two lines. See also the example for Intended Period 3 in Figure 6.

Open Time and Close Time: These times should be recorded in the same format as

capture times. That is, using the 24-hour clock, record, to the nearest 10 minutes, the

opening and closing times of the first net opened or closed. Always enter three digits.

Note that the ultimate zero is preprinted on the form; e.g., 6:24 a.m. = 062(0), 1:48 p.m. =

135(0).

Net Hours: Record the net hours accumulated (to the nearest 0.01 net hour) for the nets

recorded on each line.

Period Net Hours: Record the total effort for all days in an intended period on the last

line for the intended period.

Note No.: Record a note (with a note number) on the reverse (page 2) side of the form

indicating why nets were opened or closed at times that deviate from the standard

protocol. Record the note numbers for these notes in the Note No. column on the form.

Total net hours for all MAPS periods combined: Carefully sum the Period Net Hours for

all MAPS periods operated during the year and enter the sum in the appropriate box on

the reverse side (page 2) of the form. Please use a calculator to sum these Period Net

Hours and please double-check your sum. A comparison of this sum to the sum

obtained from the computerized effort file (in both IBP’s verification procedures and

MAPSPROG) provides an important check that all effort data have been entered.

38 - 2021 MAPS Manual

2021 MAPS SUMMARY OF MIST-NETTING EFFORT - pg 1

LOCATION CODE: B I P A STATION CODE: UPED

List net numbers of all 12-m nets: 01- 09

List net numbers and lengths (in meters) of all other nets: Net 10 = 9 m

If any nets are stacked, list their net numbers and how stacked (i.e., nets 02 and 03

stacked: 02-low, 03-high, etc.): No stacked nets

Describe any changes in your nets or net sites since last year. Any moved nets

require new net numbers! No changes

MAPS PERIODS

Period One: May 01 - May 10

Period Two: May 11 - May 20

Period Three: May 21 - May 30

Period Four: May 31 - June 09

Period Five: June 10 - June 19

Period Six: June 20 - June 29

Period Seven: June 30 - July 09

Period Eight: July 10 - July 19

Period Nine: July 20 - July 29

Period Ten: July 30 - August 08

NOTE: Heavy snowpack in some years can cause the breeding season to be delayed in the higher

elevations of the western mountains. We allow the entire MAPS season to be shifted later by one or

even two periods in these instances. If your station experienced a delay in breeding this year due to

heavy snowpack, please indicate the number of periods you shifted this year (1 or 2): ____

Intended

Period

Date

(mm/dd)

Net

number(s)

Open Time

(nearest 10 minute)

hour minute

Close Time

(nearest 10 minute)

hour minute

Net

Hours

Period

Net

Hours

Note

No.

e.g. 3

05/21

01-08,10

54.00

5.50

59.50

05/28

01-09

54.00

4.13

58.13

06/05

01-09

18.00

1.50

06/07

01-09

36.00

3.00

58.50

06/14

01-09

54.00

4.50

58.50

06/24

01-09

15.00

1.25

01-09

31.50

2.63

50.38

* Please write note on reverse side of this page.

FIGURE 6. Completed MAPS Summary of Mist-Netting Effort (page 1).

2021 MAPS Manual - 39

COLLECTION AND RECORDING OF BANDING DATA

All birds captured throughout the season, including recaptures, must be identified to

species and must be aged and sexed if possible (use “unknown” if necessary). Age and

sex birds by the extent of skull pneumatization and/or other appropriate plumage,

breeding, mensural, or molt characters (Bird Banding Offices 1991, Pyle 1997).

Incorrectly-identified, -aged, and/or -sexed birds are detrimental to analyses. All birds

not already banded and not excluded from the operator’s banding permit (except

hummingbirds, which are not included in MAPS analyses because most banders don’t

band them) must be banded with a numbered aluminum band issued by your country’s

banding office.

We consider Pyle (1997) as the authority for in-hand age, sex, and difficult species

determinations of North American passerines and near-passerines. The information in

this book is accepted by the banding offices as well. MAPS banders are expected to be

using this book in the field, and the validity of your determinations will be checked using

it as well. Please ensure that you understand the concepts presented in Pyle (1997) and

apply them appropriately. Please also ensure to correct your copy of Pyle (1997) with

the latest version of the errata (http://www.slatecreekpress.com/errata.htm).

General procedures for recording banding data

Primary MAPS data: Primary MAPS data are the data upon which all analyses of

productivity indices, survival-rate estimates, and population trends are based. Thus, it is

crucial that complete primary MAPS data be taken on all birds captured, including

recaptures. Primary MAPS data include the following data fields (see pages 43-65):

capture code (e.g., newly banded, recaptured, band changed), band number, species (as

given by the species alpha code), age, how aged (if age determined), sex, how sexed (if

sex determined), status (as required on banding schedules submitted to the banding

office), date, capture time, station, net number, disposition, and feather pull. It is

important to note that the primary MAPS data fields are the only ones that may be

subject to modification based on other information obtained during the capture or by

comparisons with other capture records of the same band number. Date, capture time,

and net number will allow us to screen out records that cannot be used for multi-year

comparisons. Ageing and sexing criteria will allow us to screen out improperly-aged

or -sexed birds and to evaluate the reliability of these criteria.

Supplemental data: MAPS operators are also asked to collect supplemental data on all

birds captured, including recaptures: extent of skull pneumatization, breeding condition

(presence or absence of a cloacal protuberance or brood patch), extent of body and

flight-feather molt, extent of primary-feather wear, extent of juvenile plumage, existence

of molt limits and information on feather generation for selected feather tracts or

groups of feather tracts, wing chord, body mass, and fat class. These data are used in

verification programs to assure the accuracy of the species, age, and sex

40 - 2021 MAPS Manual

determinations. They can also provide invaluable information regarding spatial

(geographic) and temporal variation in the timing and extent of breeding and molt and

the physiological condition of the bird. Because supplemental data reflect information

taken directly from the bird in the hand, supplemental data must never be modified and

should mirror precisely what was recorded in the field.

Optional data: Additional data, such as exposed culmen and tail length, may also be

taken but are not required, although they sometimes are useful in verifying the primary

data.

Codes, scales, and forms: All data should be taken according to the standardized

guidelines and utilizing the standardized codes described in these instructions and

should be recorded on copies of the standardized 8 ½" by 14" MAPS banding-data

sheets (Figs. 7 and 8) included in your spring MAPS package.

We realize that some contributors to the MAPS Program have long been recording many

of these data according to slightly different codes and scales. The codes suggested in

these guidelines are the result of thousands of hours of field work and subsequent

analysis by researchers at the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Point Blue Conservation Science (previously Point Reyes Bird Observatory), and The

Institute for Bird Populations and are summarized in Ralph et al. 1993. In an effort to aid

in the standardization of the capture and banding data now being collected in North

America, we suggest that you adopt the scales and codes presented here. If you find it

impossible to adopt these scales and codes, you must provide us with an explanation of

how your codes correspond to MAPS codes so that they can be converted to MAPS

codes. Note that codes other than MAPS codes are not accepted by the MAPS

entry/verification program, MAPSPROG.

Please use the MAPS banding-data sheets for recording all MAPS banding data. We

have examined well over 70 different banding-data sheets and have designed these

sheets to increase the ease, logic, and accuracy of recording banding data in the field,

as well as the efficiency and accuracy of entering those data into a computer for

analysis and the production of banding schedules.

There are three types of MAPS banding-data sheets: the MAPS Banding Sheet for

recording the use of new bands; the MAPS Recaptures Sheet for recording recaptures;

and the MAPS Unbanded Sheet for recording birds that are captured but left unbanded.

Multiple-station locations: If more than one station is operated at a location, band

strings are shared among stations, and banding is not conducted simultaneously at

multiple stations, then the data from these stations should be combined on a single set

of banding-data sheets to avoid gaps in the band sequences on the forms. If more than

one set of banding-data sheets must be used, please use a different page-numbering

sequence for each set (A1, A2,.; B1, B2...) so that each location/year/band-size/page

combination is unique.

Non-MAPS data: Banding data from non-MAPS sites (e.g., nestlings, traps, feeder

stations) or collected before or after the MAPS season (April 26-August 13, or through

September 2 if effort for periods 9 and 10 is being made up) can be submitted to the

2021 MAPS Manual - 41

MAPS Program if it makes clerical/administrative work easier for your banding

operation, but is not required. We recommend non-MAPS data should be recorded on

separate forms and, if possible, with separate band strings so as to avoid breaks in the

band sequences on the MAPS Banding Sheets. However, occasionally, individual

records that technically cannot be considered MAPS data are included on MAPS

banding-data sheets. These records might include birds found dead on a trail or they

might consist of a bird captured accidentally not in a MAPS net or at your MAPS station.

These records must be identified as non-MAPS in order to avoid including them in

constant-effort analyses. Mark these records by recording “NM” in the NOTE NUMBER

field.

Page headings and other notations: Be sure to fill out the headings - Location, Year,

Band Size (for new bands), and Page # - on each banding-data sheet. Use the four-

character location code determined during station registration. Number the pages

sequentially for each band size, starting with page 1 every year; in other words, there will

be a page 1 for each band size used each year. This is very important, as it will allow us

(and you) to see at a glance that all data are submitted. Please write “End of year” at the

bottom of the last page of each band size each season.

New bands: To ensure that band numbers are recorded and computerized correctly and

to facilitate band inventory and scheduling, it is of the utmost importance that original

banding data for only a SINGLE STRING OF BANDS be included on any single MAPS

Banding Sheet and that the bands be recorded (and, as much as possible, used) in

sequence. Please write “End of string” below the last record for each band string.

Lost and destroyed bands: Lost and destroyed bands should be recorded in sequence

on the MAPS Banding Sheets. Record only code, band number, species name as “Band

Lost” or “Band Destroyed,” date, and station.

Recaptures: Every capture of a banded bird is a “recapture”. Recaptures thus include

returns (first captures in the current year of birds banded previously in the same place

on the same permit), repeats (subsequent captures, even on the same day, of birds

banded or recaptured in the same place earlier in the current year), and foreign

recaptures (first captures of birds banded in a different place or on a different permit).

Birds banded outside of MAPS operation and recaptured during MAPS operation are

considered recaptures. Previously-banded birds that escape or are inadvertently

released before the band number is read should also be recorded as recaptures.

Complete data should be taken for all recaptures and should be recorded only on MAPS

Recaptures Sheets. It is crucial that new and recapture banding data NOT be entered on

the same sheets. Do NOT separate recaptures by band size. Recaptures of birds with

non-USGS bands from another country, i.e. not from the USA or Canada, are handled

differently than recaptures of birds with federal USGS bands. Record the band number

from the foreign country on the recapture page and then add a USGS aluminum band to

the other leg. Record this new band on the newly banded page for the appropriate band

size. Leaving the original band on the bird will allow the other country to keep tracking

the history of the bird and adding the new band will allow tracking of the bird in the

USGS databases and, if the bird is recaptured in the country of origin, allow those

banders to know that it was captured in the US or Canada as well. Cross reference the

42 - 2021 MAPS Manual

band numbers in the note fields on the back of each page and both records should be

given capture code “A.”

Changed bands: If a band is replaced, record the capture on both the MAPS Banding

Sheet (new band) and MAPS Recaptures Sheet (recapture record). Record the old band

number on the Recapture Sheet, with the new number as a note on the back. Record the

new band number on the Banding Sheet, with the old number as a note on the back. The

old band should be sent to the banding office with the schedule on which the new band

is reported. Both records should be given capture code “C.” NEVER re-use a band you

have taken off a bird; it makes tracking individuals exceedingly difficult and, because the

structural integrity of the band is compromised, increases the risk of injury to the bird.

Importantly, a changed band should be counted only as a single recapture on the

Summary of Mist-netting Results (see below), because it involves only one bird.

Added bands: Occasionally, birds wind up with a band on each leg. Usually, this is the

result of a bander not realizing that the bird is a recapture and applying a band to the

other leg or due to a foreign recapture of a bird banded in a country other than the

United States or Canada (see recapture section above). Accidental double banding can

be avoided by ensuring that all banders at your location are banding on the same leg. If

both bands are readable and neither is endangering the bird’s welfare, it is best, because

of the risk of injury to the bird, not to attempt to remove one of the bands. If the bird was

captured with two bands, enter a record for each band, both with code “A” (for “Added

Band”), on the Recapture Sheet. If you have applied the second band, record it (again as

code “A”) on the Banding Sheet, with the original band number in a note, and record the

original band on the Recapture Sheet (also with code “A”) with the added band number

in a note (analogous to changing a band, except that no band was removed). As with

changed bands, added bands should be counted only as single recaptures on the

Summary of Mist-netting Results (see below).

Unbanded birds: As much information as possible (including all primary MAPS data)

must be recorded on the MAPS Unbanded Sheets for all birds that are captured but not

banded (escapes, releases, and mortalities) regardless of the size of band they would

have received had they been banded. Data on these birds is essential for calculating

capture rates, and mortalities can be used in productivity analyses. A bird is considered

an “escape” if it was touched prior to escape; a bird that bounces out of or escapes from

a net before it is touched should not be recorded. “Releases” might include species that

a bander is not authorized to band (gallinaceous species or hummingbirds) and birds for

which the recommended band size is unavailable. See Table 2 for species alpha codes

for gallinaceous birds.

Mortalities: Even if all reasonable precautions are taken, mortalities do occur

occasionally in the course of mist netting. If a bird dies before it is banded, it should be

recorded on the MAPS Unbanded Sheet. If a bird dies just after it is banded, remove and

destroy the band. Record the bird's data on the Unbanded Sheet to account for the

capture and the band number on the Banding Sheet as destroyed (code “D”) to account

for the destroyed band. In either case, the bird should receive “000” in the “STATUS” field

and a “D” or “P” in the “DISP” field for “death due to cause other than predation” or

“predator-caused mortality,” respectively. If the mortality is a recapture, record the

2021 MAPS Manual - 43

individual's band number and all normally collected data on the Recapture Sheet and

then remove the band. Destroy the band unless it is a recovery, in which case you should

submit the information electronically at http://www.reportband.gov. As before, enter

“000” in the STATUS field and “D” or “P” in the DISP field.

Banding-data fields

The front of the banding-data sheet is broken into 36 fields each containing one or more

columns. Each of these fields is described separately below. Please write out

completely the first record on each sheet each day. After that, use a “greater than” (>) or

“less than” (<) in the BANDER’S INITIALS, SPECIES NAME, STATUS, DATE, CAPTURE

TIME, and STATION fields if the entry is repeated (on the same day only) on the next

line; do not use ditto marks or vertical lines that can be mistaken for ‘1’s and do not use

these symbols in any other fields. If data for a given field are not collected, leave the

field blank; do not use zeroes, nines, hyphens, slashes, or any other symbols to

designate data not taken.

Please record all data taken, even if the values are “0,” and do not make assumptions.

For example, if you have what you believe is a female with a brood patch, please verify

that there is no cloacal protuberance. Once you have done so, enter “0” in the CP field; if

you leave it blank, we cannot assume that you checked to make sure there was not a

CP.

BANDER’S INITIALS -- Place the initials of the bander or person taking the data in this

field. Write the initials and full names of all the banders on the page in the spaces

provided at the bottom of the form.

CODE -- Capture Code. Use the codes shown at the top of the banding-data sheet. Use

“N” for all newly-banded birds; “L” for lost bands; “D” for destroyed bands; “U” for

unbanded birds; “C” for changed bands (refer to the section on changed bands [above]

for instructions on code- “C” captures); “A” for added bands (refer to the section on

added bands [above]); and “R” for all other recaptures, regardless of whether they are

repeats, returns, or recoveries. Note that the only capture codes acceptable on a given

sheet are those presented at the top of the sheet (e.g., “N” does not appear on the

Recapture Sheet). The code for unbanded birds, “U,” is already filled in on the Unbanded

Sheet for these birds.

BAND NUMBER -- For new, lost, and destroyed bands, enter the complete band number

for the first band on the first line of each page. Do not use a hyphen to separate the

prefix from the rest of the band number. Please double-check to be sure that this first

band number is completely correct. Thereafter, for all other band numbers on the page,

enter only the last three digits right-justified. For all recaptures, however, be sure to enter

the full band number each time. Furthermore, please double-check the band numbers on

all recaptured birds before releasing them. Incorrect band numbers on recaptures are

the most serious errors of all because correct band numbers on recaptured birds are the

basis for all mark-recapture analyses. We strongly recommend the use of some form of

optical magnification, preferably a magnification visor, to read the band numbers of

44 - 2021 MAPS Manual

recaptured birds and to examine skull pneumatization of all birds. The best one we have

found is the OptiVISOR, an optical glass binocular magnifier that fits over your head, tilts

up when not in use, and leaves both hands free to band and examine the bird. We

recommend the DA-5 model (2.5 power at a focal length of 8"; price about $30). It is

distributed by lapidary and jewelers’-supply houses or on Amazon.

It is extremely important that all band numbers be nine characters long. Three-digit

prefixes must be recorded prefaced with a “0” (e.g., 972 becomes 0972). Two-digit

prefixes must be recorded prefaced and followed by ‘d’s (e.g., 81 becomes 0810). For

unbanded birds, leave BAND NUMBER blank.

SPECIES NAME -- Enter at least an abbreviation of the species name (e.g., “Blk-cap

Chick” for Black-capped Chickadee). This abbreviation will not be entered in the MAPS

database but will serve as a check against the error-prone SPECIES ALPHA CODE

(below), such as Barn Swallow (“BARS”) and Bank Swallow (“BANS”), both of which are

often written incorrectly as “BASW”. Write “Band Lost” or “Band Destroyed” in this space

where appropriate.

SPECIES ALPHA CODE -- Enter the four-letter code for the species (e.g., “BCCH” for

Black-capped Chickadee) from Four-letter and six-letter alpha codes for birds recorded

from the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list area (Pyle and DeSante 2003). This

list (further updated in Pyle and DeSante [up through 2020) can be downloaded from

The Institute for Bird Populations’ website at http://www.birdpop.org/AlphaCodes.htm .

Very few discrepancies that are likely to be encountered by banders exist between this

list and the current BBL codes. In the very few cases where the species codes differ, and

until the BBL is able to update their codes, MAPSPROG will convert the alpha codes

provided by Pyle and DeSante (2003, 2005, 2006) to current BBL codes when producing

the export file for Band Manager. Species codes for gallinaceous birds are given in

Table 2; these species do not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal banding offices,

which consequently do not provide alpha codes for them.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2. Species alpha codes for gallinaceous birds.

Species Alpha codes

Plain Chachalaca PLCH

Chukar CHUK

Himalayan Snowcock HISN

Gray Partridge GRAP

Ring-necked Pheasant RNEP

Common Peafowl CPEA

Ruffed Grouse RUGR

Greater Sage-Grouse GRSG

Gunnison Sage-Grouse GUSG

Spruce Grouse SPGR

Willow Ptarmigan WIPT

Rock Ptarmigan ROPT

White-tailed Ptarmigan WTPT

Species Alpha Codes

Dusky Grouse DUGR

Sooty Grouse SOGR

Sharp-tailed Grouse STGR

Greater Prairie-Chicken GRPC

Lesser Prairie-Chicken LEPC

Wild Turkey WITU

Mountain Quail MOUQ

Scaled Quail SCQU

California Quail CAQU

Gamble’s Quail GAQU

Northern Bobwhite NOBO

Montezuma Quail MONQ

____________________________________________________________________________________

2021 MAPS Manual - 45

Occasionally, notes associated with a record indicate that the species determination for

a recapture or an unbanded bird was uncertain. Mark these records by recording “QS”

in the NOTE NUMBER field.

AGE -- Enter a single-digit numeric code for the age class of the bird, as shown at the top

of the banding-data sheets. Alternate, single-character, alpha codes for each age class

also are presented below. We strongly recommend using the numeric codes, however,

because of the difficulty we have experienced in distinguishing between a printed ‘H’

and a printed ‘A’, which together comprise the vast majority of the age classes. Note:

MAPSPROG will only accept the numeric codes. These codes are:

4 - Local (L): A young bird incapable of sustained flight. (These birds always

should be processed as quickly as possible and released very close to the net

in which they were captured.)

2 - Hatching Year (H): A bird capable of sustained flight and known to have

hatched during the calendar year in which it is captured. If these birds are in full

juvenile plumage, consider releasing them near the net in which they were

captured. Parents may still be feeding these young.

1 - After Hatching Year (A): A bird known to have hatched before the calendar year

in which it is captured; year of hatching otherwise unknown.

5 - Second Year (S): A bird known to have hatched in the calendar year preceding

the year in which it is captured (known to be in its second calendar year of life).

6 - After Second Year (O): A bird known to have hatched earlier than the calendar

year preceding the year in which it is captured (known to be at least in its third

calendar year); year of hatching otherwise unknown.

7 - Third Year (T): A bird known to have hatched two calendar years prior to the

year in which it is captured (known to be in its third calendar year).

8 - After Third Year (Z): A bird known to have hatched more than two calendar

years prior to the year in which it is captured (known to be at least in its fourth

calendar year); year of hatching otherwise unknown.

0 - Indeterminable (U): Age unknown because age indeterminable; i.e., age

determination attempted but not possible with confidence.

9 - Not attempted (X): Age unknown because age determination not attempted.

Please attempt (without relying on previous capture data) to age adult birds as second

year (SY) or after second year (ASY). It should be possible to reach this level of precision

with at least some individuals of roughly 95% of North American passerine and near-

passerine species. In addition, many near-passerines (including woodpeckers) and a

few passerines may be aged to third year (TY) and after third year (ATY). Our ability to

index juvenile survival rates and estimate recruitment rates of young and immigration

rates of adults hinges on your ability to discriminate between SY and ASY age classes.

Since the presence of juvenile or first-alternate feathers indicates SY, whereas the lack

of such feathers often is not definitive, it is likely that more SYs than ASYs will be

identified.

46 - 2021 MAPS Manual

WRP – Wolfe-Ryder-Pyle age classification. Enter the three-character code for the cycle-

based age class of the bird. This code describes the plumage and molt stage of the

individual. Entry of these codes is currently optional.

The first of the three characters indicates the cycle:

F - first cycle

S - second cycle (usually used only for woodpeckers)

T - third cycle (used rarely for woodpeckers)

D - definitive cycle

U - unknown cycle

The second of the three characters indicates the molt status:

C - mid-cycle, no molting feathers on bird

P - bird in molt. For HYs it can be in body-feather molt; for AHYs it should be

in primary molt. This code can also be used for a bird not actively molting

if it is in the suspended phase of a suspended molt, e.g. REVI, but this

situation will be very rare.

A - after a known cycle, but current cycle not known and with no molting

feathers on bird. In MAPS used for AHYs given code FAJ.

The third of the three characters indicates the plumage. I.e., the plumage a non-

molting individual is currently in or the plumage in which a molting individual is

molting into:

J - juvenile plumage

F - formative plumage

A - alternate plumage

B - basic plumage

U - unknown plumage

Not all of the three-character code combinations are valid. Below is a list of the codes

most frequently used in MAPS, followed by the calendar based age code that usually

applies in North America, but note that there is no direct correspondence between WRP

and calendar-based age codes. The most common codes are listed first and in the order

they are encountered in a typical passerine:

FPJ - First prejuvenile molt: The individual is molting into its juvenile plumage and

must have molting body and/or flight feathers. This molt is also known as the

"first prebasic molt" under new terminology but because of the unique

qualities of the first generation feathers produced in this molt, the molt is

more commonly called the prejuvenile molt. AGE=2/HY in North America and

during the MAPS season.

FCJ - First cycle juvenile plumage: The individual is in full juvenile plumage, i.e. only

juvenile feathers are present and the bird has no molting feathers. AGE=2/HY

during the MAPS season.

FPF - First preformative molt: The individual is molting into its formative plumage.

The bird must have molting body and/or flight feathers. Usually AGE=2/HY

during the MAPS season.

2021 MAPS Manual - 47

FCF - First cycle formative plumage: The individual is in full formative plumage, i.e.

the bird has no molting feathers and most often has a mixture of retained

juvenile feathers and replaced formative feathers. Note that this code can

apply to both fresh HYs that have finished the preformative molt (e.g.,

warblers) and worn SYs of many species. Thus it is important to also code

these as AGE=2/HY or AGE=5/SY, respectively.

FPA - First prealternate molt: The individual is molting into its first alternate

plumage. The bird must have molting body and/or flight feathers. Usually

AGE=5/SY during the MAPS season.

FCA - First cycle alternate plumage: The individual is in full first-alternate plumage,

i.e. the bird has no molting feathers and has a mixture of juvenile, formative,

and alternate feathers. Usually AGE=5/SY during the MAPS season.

SPB - Second prebasic molt: The individual is molting into its second basic

plumage. It must have molting primaries and still retains some juvenile,

formative and/or first alternate feathers. Usually AGE=5/SY during the MAPS

season.

FAJ - After first cycle juvenile: The individual does not have any juvenile feathers

but it can’t be determined if it is in formative or basic plumage – or – for

known adults (by skull, breeding condition, etc) but in unknown plumage. In

the original definition, this code is used only for species that have a complete

preformative molt, e.g. WREN, BUSH, NOCA, GRSP, HOSP, swallows, and

other species. We have adjusted the coding to allow other species to be used

for unknown plumage adults. Usually AGE=1/AHY during the MAPS season.

DCB - Definitive cycle basic plumage: The individual is in full basic plumage, i.e. the

bird has no molting feathers and has only basic feathers. Often AGE=6/ASY

during the MAPS season.

DPA - Definitive prealternate molt: The individual is molting into its definitive

alternate plumage. The bird must have molting body and/or flight feathers.

Often AGE=6/ASY during the MAPS season.

DCA - Definitive cycle alternate plumage: The individual is in full alternate plumage,

i.e. the bird has no molting feathers and has a mixture of basic and alternate

feathers. Often AGE=6/ASY during the MAPS season.

DPB - Definitive prebasic molt: The individual is molting from one basic plumage to

another definitive basic plumage. It must have molting primaries and show

both retained and replaced definitive basic and/or alternate feathers. Often

AGE=6/ASY during the MAPS season.

Less common codes:

UCA - Unknown cycle alternate plumage: The individual is known to be in alternate

plumage, but it is unknown which cycle the individual is in and the bird has no

molting feathers. Usually AGE=1/AHY during the MAPS season.

MAPS BANDING Sheet Location B I P A Band Size 0

Year

2021 Page # 1

CODE AGE HOW AGED AND HOW SEXED WRP CODE SKULL CL. PROT. BR. PATCH FAT BODY MLT FF MOLT FF WEAR MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE DISP

New Band N Local 4 Skull S Feather Wear F Cycle:F,S,D,U None 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 None 0 None N None 0 Juvenal J Malformed M

Band Destroyed D Hatching Year 2 Cloacal Pr. C Mouth/Bill I Middle:C,P,A Trace 1 Small 1 Smooth 1 Trace 1 Trace 1 Adventitious A Slight 1

Juv. & Form.

Old/healed Injury

Band Lost L After Hatching Year 1 Brood Patch B Eye Color E Plumage: < 1/3 2 Medium 2

Vascular.

2 Light 2

Light

2 Symmetric S Light 2 Formative F Illness/Disease I

Band Changed*

C Second Year 5

Juv. Body Plum.

J Wing Length W J,S,F,A,B,U Half 3 Large 3 Heavy 3 Half 3 Medium 3 Juv. growth J Moderate 3 Basic B

Stress/Shock S

www.birdpop.org

Band Added* A After Second Year 6 Molt Limit L Tail Length T > 2/3 4 Wrinkled 4 Filled 4 Heavy 4 JUV BDY PL Heavy 4

Juv. & Basic

R Eye Injury E

*Old Band No. in note Third Year 7 Plumage P Other (Note) O

Almst Com.

5 Molting 5 Bulging 5

Full 3

Excessive 5

Mixed Basic

M Tongue Injury T

SEX

After Third Year 8 Molt M

Fully Comp.

6 Gr. Bulging 6 >1/2 2 Alternate A Wing Injury W

Male M Indeterminable 0 Invisible 8 V. Excess. 7 < 1/2 1

Non-juvenal

N Body Injury B

Female

Not attempted 9

None 0 Unknown U Leg Injury L

Indeterm. U

Predation

Not attempt.

Dead

DATE

BANDER'S

INITIALS

CODE

BAND NUMBER

SPECIES

ALPHA

CODE

AGE

HOW

AGED

SEX

HOW

SEXED

SKULL

CL. PROT.

BR. PATCH

FAT

BODY MLT

FF MOLT

JUV BDY PL

PRI. COVS

PRIMARIES

SECONDS

TERTIALS

RECTRICES

BODY PLUM.

NON-FEATH

WING STATUS MO DAY

CAPTURE

TIME

DISP

NOTE

NUMBER

FTHR. PULL

C C C 1 9 3 0 3 8 3 8 8 C A C H 6 S P

D C B

C 6 2 0 0 0 N B B B 6 3 9

7 3 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 6 5

U P E D 0 5 1

P B N 3 8 9 A C F L 5 S L

F C F

F B 6 0 4 0 0 N J U U J 3 6 8 1 2

9 > > 0 7 2

> 0 4 2

C C N 3 9 0 C H S P 1 P

U C A

U U A N

> > 0 8 0

> 0 9 3

C C N 3 9 1 C O Y E 2 S J

F P F

U 1 0 0 0 1 N 2 5 4 1 0

1 5 0 0 > 1 0 4

> 0 1 W 4

A B N 3 9 2

E V I 6 E P

D P B

U 6 0 0 0 1 N B B U U B 6 0 1 2

7 3 0 0 0 7 0 8 1 0 0

C R 0 1 5

C C N 3 9 3 B A

S P B

P 8 0 0 0 4 S J J 7 0 1 0

5 5 0 0 > 1 1 5

> 1 0 I 6 O

A B N 3 9 4 C O Y E 1 S B

F A J

F P B 6 0 3 0 0 N J U U U B 5 3 9

8 3 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 8 4

U P E D 0 7 7 O

P B N 3 9 5 N R

S 1 S P

F A J

P 5 0 0 0 0 N N N N N 1 6 1 4

9 3 0 0 0 7 1 6 0 8 4

C R 0 3

P B N 3 9 6 P R O

6 S P

D P B

P 6 0 0 0 4 S B B U 7 1 1 5

5 > > 1 0 0

> 0 1 8 O

C C N 3 9 7 A

R E 2 S J

F P F

U 2 0 0 0 3 N 1 6 3 8

2 3 0 0 0 7 2 5 0 7 3

U P E D 0 5

A B N 3 9 8 Y E

A 5 S L

D C A

P C 6 2 0 0 0 N J F J A 6 2 9

6 > > 0 9 3

> 0 8 9 O

A B N 3 9 9 C A C H 1

U P B

U 8 0 5 0 4 S U U U 6 5 1 0

2 3 0 0 0 7 2 7 0 8 4

C R 0 4 1 0

P B N 4 0 0 H O

A 2 S L

F P F

P 2 0 0 0 2 N 1 J J 6 4 1 0

8 3 0 0 0 8 0 5 0 7 1

C R 0 6 1 1 O

. 0

Bander:

C C Chris Countersong Bander: P B Peter Bridgestone Bander:

Andrea Bassethound

Bander:

Figure 7. Completed MAPS banding-data sheet for Band Size '0' (front). Associated notes are shown in Figure 8.

2021 MAPS Manual - 48

Black & white warb.

C. Yellowthroat

N.Rough-wng Swal.

Proth. Warbler

American Restart

Yellow Warbler

Carolina Chickadee

Hooded Warbler

FF WEAR

STRING

MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE

Leave blank if you didn't look at

that feather tract.

White-eyed Vireo

SPECIES NAME

NET

STATION

BODY

MASS

WRP CODE

SEC. COVS

Carolina Chickadee

Acadian Flycatch

Chipping Sparrow

C. Yellowthroat

NOTE NO. NOTE

1 band changed, original band number = 122045678

2 molt limit within lesser and med covs

3 aged by adult plumage; escaped before fully processed

4 Unable to fly on release but couldn't recapture

5 couldn't see molt limit betw/ terts and middle ss (but Pyle says can be hard to see)

6 pox on legs; pp 1-2 growing

7 male seen near net during extraction. Rects looked ~truncate but pp covs looked ~tapered - unsure of SY/ASY, aged AHY

8 molting pp 3-4. unreplaced outer pp covs & rects truncate

9 gr covs w/ 3 feather gens - 3 alternate coverts; rects with limited yellow (like Fig. 263 B)

10 molting pp 2-3, ss 8-9, & pp covs, L & R r 1, unsure of brood patch 5

11 preformative nearly complete; head & upper breast feathers black w/ yellow edging

49 - 2021 MAPS Manual

50 - 2021 MAPS Manual

SCB - Second cycle basic plumage: The individual is in second basic plumage with

a few retained juvenile feathers and has no molting feathers. This and the

following two codes are used almost exclusively for woodpeckers during

MAPS banding. Usually AGE=7/TY during the MAPS season.

TPB - Third prebasic molt: The individual is molting into its third basic plumage. It

must have molting primaries and retains at least some juvenile and second

basic feathers. Usually AGE=7/TY during the MAPS season.

TCB - Third cycle basic plumage: The individual is in third basic plumage with

retained juvenile and second basic feathers and has no molting feathers. This

code is only rarely used for woodpeckers. Usually AGE=4Y during the MAPS

season.

FCU - First cycle unknown plumage: The individual is its first cycle because it

retains juvenile feathers, but it is unknown if it is in formative or alternate

plumage. Used often for species where the difference between formative and

alternate plumages is subtle, e.g. OVEN or female COYE, etc. Usually

AGE=5/SY during the MAPS season.

DCU - Definitive cycle unknown plumage: The individual is its definitive cycle but it is

unknown if it is in basic or alternate plumage. Used often for species where

the difference between basic and alternate plumages is subtle, e.g. OVEN or

female COYE, etc. Usually AGE=6/ASY during the MAPS season.

UPB - Unknown prebasic molt: The individual is molting into a definitive basic

plumage but is it unknown if the previous plumage was formative or basic. It

must have molting primaries. This code is also used for birds completing a

prebasic molt with, e.g., p10 or s6 growing, but has no feathers remaining

from the previous generation. Usually AGE=1/AHY during the MAPS season.

UCU - Unknown cycle unknown plumage: It is unknown which plumage and cycle

the individual is in and the bird has no molting feathers. Usually AGE=1/AHY

or 0/U during the MAPS season.

UPU - Unknown cycle, unknown plumage, but molting: Used when it is unknown if

bird is undergoing the FPF or the DPB (see also UPB, above). Usually

AGE=1/AHY or 0/U during the MAPS season.

UUU - Unknown cycle, unknown plumage, and unknown molting status: Usually

AGE=0/U during the MAPS season.

Please contact IBP if you have any questions!

The WRP determination must be supported by data in the body molt, flight feather

molt, juvenile body plumage, and/or the first seven MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields.

HOW AGED -- The how-aged codes indicate the criteria that you used to determine the

age of the bird. Use only the appropriate code(s) shown at the top of the banding-data

sheets. Use two codes if possible and enter them from left to right in order of

2021 MAPS Manual - 51

importance for your age determination. If you use only one code, enter it left-justified.

You must record at least one criterion unless the age is unknown (i.e., unless AGE = 0 or

9). The how-aged codes are as follows:

S - Skull: The degree of skull pneumatization.

C - Cloacal Protuberance: The presence of a cloacal protuberance on adults.

B - Brood Patch: The presence of a brood patch on adults.

J - Juvenile Plumage: The presence of juvenile body plumage on juveniles.

L - Molt Limit: The presence of two generations of feathers within a feather tract

(e.g., within the greater coverts) or between two adjacent feather tracts (e.g.,

between the primary coverts and greater coverts). If the Molt Limit code is

used, at least one of the first seven MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields (see

below) must be filled in.

P - Plumage: The appearance, if reliable for ageing, of plumages other than

juvenile body plumage. Feather color, shape, quality, and wear are plumage

characteristics; measurements are not. Contrasts in color, shape, quality, or

wear between two generations of feathers or groups of feathers should

generally be treated as a molt limit characteristic (L), not a plumage

characteristic (P). If the Plumage code is used, at least one of the first seven

MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields (see below) must be filled in.

M - Molt: The presence and characteristics, if reliable, of active molt, indicated by

pinfeathers and/or missing flight feathers in a symmetric pattern.

F - Feather Wear: The degree, if reliable, of flight-feather wear.

I - Mouth/Bill: The external and/or internal appearance, if reliable, of the bill or the

presence of a fleshy gape on very young birds.

E - Eye color: The color of the iris, if reliable. This does not include the eye ring.

O - Other: Any criterion not listed above (e.g., date, orbital apterium, talon-flange

serration, tail fork, egg visible, etc.). If you use this code, you must explain how

the bird was aged in a note on the back of the sheet.

Note that W (Wing Length) and T (Tail Length) are not valid how-aged codes. If tail

length (or tail fork) are used to age Barn Swallows or Great-tailed Grackles use “O” and

provide a note to that effect.

Please do not age recaptures based upon previous captures. Each capture should be

treated in the field as if it were a new bird in order to avoid perpetuating previous errors

and to enable us to see what is possible from field observations at that time of year.

Please remember that you must record at least one ageing criterion unless the age is

unknown (indeterminable or unattempted). In many cases, especially with adults, more

than one criterion is available; RECORD TWO! Try to look at and indicate features such

as plumage, eye color, and bill/mouth that are not recorded elsewhere on the form. Don’t

forget that CPs and BPs can be used for ageing adults, since HY birds don’t get them.

52 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Please study the sample banding sheet (Fig. 7) to better understand how this field

should be used.

You must record data in at least one of the first seven MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields

whenever “L” or “P” is used as a how-aged code. You also must record data in at least

one of the MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields whenever you age an adult bird more

specifically than AHY (i.e., SY, ASY, TY, or ATY). Remember, however, that when you age

an adult bird as SY by Molt Limit, you must also indicate, with an additional how-aged

code, what you used to determine that it was not a HY bird (e.g., skull, cloacal

protuberance, brood patch, plumage, molt, feather wear, mouth/bill, eye color, or other).

This additional how-aged code should generally be recorded as the left-justified one.

SEX -- Enter “M” for male, “F” for female, “U” for indeterminable (sex unknown because

sex indeterminable, i.e., sex determination attempted but not possible with certainty), or

“X” for not attempted (sex unknown because sex determination not attempted). If you

must use numeric codes (we strongly recommend against them), use “4” for male, “5”

for female, “0” for indeterminable, and “9” for not attempted.

HOW SEXED -- Use the codes below as in HOW AGED above. As with age, do not sex

recaptures in the field based on previous captures. Note that S (skull), L (molt limit), M

(molt), and F (feather wear) are not valid how-sexed codes.

C - Cloacal Protuberance: The presence of a cloacal protuberance, if reliable, on

adult males.

B - Brood Patch: The presence or degree of a brood patch, if reliable, on adult

females.

J - Juvenile Plumage: The appearance of juvenile body plumage, if reliable, on

juveniles.

P - Plumage: The appearance, if reliable, of all plumages other than juvenile

plumage. Does not include measurements.

I - Mouth/Bill: The appearance, if reliable, of the bill.

E - Eye Color: The color, if reliable, of the iris.

W - Wing Length: The wing chord, if reliable.

T - Tail Length: The length, if reliable, of the tail.

O - Other: Any criterion not listed above (e.g., singing, tail fork, egg visible, etc.).

Use of this code requires an explanatory note.

We commonly see data for species that cannot be sexed by plumage with “CP” or “BP”

in the HOW SEXED field. This invariably is the result of a bander instructing a recorder to

enter “male by CP” or “female by BP” and the recorder not realizing that “P” in this case

stands for plumage. It is much safer (and faster) to say the codes (e.g., “M by C”) rather

than the words.

SKULL -- Skull Pneumatization. In order to determine the degree of skull pneumatization,

it is necessary to part the feathers of the head to get them out of the way (wetting them

2021 MAPS Manual - 53

slightly may help), then gently rock the skin back and forth over the skull while looking

through the skin to the skull. The best procedure is to start at the back of the skull and

proceed toward the front looking for the pattern of the line that separates the

pneumatized area from the area that is not pneumatized. A pneumatized skull consists

of two layers of bone connected by tiny “struts” and filled with air, much like the wing of

a plane. A pneumatized skull appears opaque and grayish with tiny whitish dots. In

contrast, an un-pneumatized skull, consisting of a single, thin layer of bone, appears

pinkish and somewhat translucent and never shows the minute dots characteristic of a

pneumatized skull. We very strongly recommend the use of a binocular magnifier such

as the OptiVISOR for determining the degree of skull pneumatization (see above under

BAND NUMBER). See Yunick 1979, Ralph et al. 1993, and Pyle 1997 for more complete

information (including diagrams) on the determination of age by skull pneumatization.

Skull pneumatization should be recorded by means of the scale shown below. We

strongly recommend using the numeric codes, although corresponding alpha codes that

were developed by Ralph et al. (1993) also are shown below; these alpha codes may be

used in the field if necessary, but we request that they be converted to numeric codes

prior to submission.

0 - (N = none): Skull not pneumatized; that is, only a single thin layer of bone

covers the entire brain, which shows through the thin covering of bone and

appears as an unmarked, pinkish color. Beware of thick-skinned species such

as corvids and parids, whose skull can be very difficult to see because the skin

itself tends to be rather opaque; and heavily-muscled species such as

grosbeaks and cardinals, whose jaw muscles can obscure the rear of the skull.

1 - (T = trace): A trace of skull pneumatization can be seen at the very back of the

skull, usually appearing as an opaque, grayish crescent or a very-small,

triangular area. Somewhere from 1 to 5% of the skull is pneumatized.

2 - (L = less than 1/3): Skull less than 1/3 pneumatized but some pneumatization

is obvious. Thus, somewhere from 6 to 33% of the skull is pneumatized.

Generally, the posterior part of the cranium has an inverted ‘u’- or ‘v’-shaped

area of pneumatization that is usually distinctly grayish and contrasts with the

unpneumatized area. The grayish area typically shows the characteristic, small,

whitish dots of a pneumatized skull.

3 - (H = half): Skull greater than 1/3 but less than 2/3 pneumatized. In typical birds,

most of the rear half of the skull is pneumatized, as is a small portion of the

front part extending back around the eyes. This front part of the skull is usually

very difficult to see because the feathers of the forehead are dense and short

and difficult to move out of the way. In most cases, a bird given a “3” skull will

show a pneumatized area extending up the midline or sides of the skull.

4 - (G = greater than 2/3): Skull at least 2/3 pneumatized but at least small areas

of skull not pneumatized. Thus, somewhere from 67 to 94% of the skull is

pneumatized. The un-pneumatized areas generally show either as two oval,

pinkish spots on either side of the cranium or (rarely) as a single spot in the

center of the skull.

54 - 2021 MAPS Manual

5 - (A = almost complete): Somewhere from 95 to 99% of the skull is pneumatized.

These birds have virtually a fully-pneumatized skull that shows one or two tiny,

dull-pinkish areas where the pneumatization is incomplete. It should be noted

that some birds, including many flycatchers, thrushes, and vireos, never

develop a fully pneumatized skull, even when adult, but retain a “5” skull

throughout life. Thus, a “5”-skull bird cannot necessarily be called a HY/SY bird

because it could be an AHY/ASY bird whose skull never completely

pneumatized.

6 - (F = fully complete): Skull fully pneumatized.

8 - (I = invisible): Skull examined but extent of pneumatization not visible. Do not

use this code if you have determined that pneumatization is incomplete but are

unsure of the appropriate score; in this case, make your best guess!

CL. PROT. -- Cloacal Protuberance. As the breeding season approaches, the cloaca of

most male birds (and female Wrentits) begins to enlarge and forms an obvious

protuberance which serves a role in sperm storage. The development of the cloacal

protuberance is recorded according to the system shown below. Again, we strongly

recommend using the numeric codes, although corresponding alpha codes are also

given.

0 - (N= none): Cloaca not enlarged.

1 - (S= small): Cloaca somewhat enlarged and noticeably swollen. The shape of

the protuberance is generally such that it is widest at the base and narrowest

near the tip (conical). Since small cloacal protuberances (CPs) can be hard to

discern, caution should be used in ageing or sexing birds on the basis of a CP

of 1 alone. A CP of 1 can not be used to age or sex the thrushes of the genera

Catharus, Hylocichla, Turdus, or Ixoreus. We have found that unenlarged

cloacas in these species have often been designated CP = 1, which regularly

has led to incorrect age or sex determinations.

2 - (M = medium): Cloacal protuberance large, with a diameter fully as large near

the tip as at the base (cylindrical).

3 - (L = large): Cloacal protuberance very large and with a diameter considerably

larger in the middle than at the base (bulbous).

Unlike a brood patch (see below), a regressing CP simply goes back down the scale:

3-2-1-0. CPs vary greatly in size and shape among species, being largest and most

prominent in sparrows and thrushes and much less prominent in jays and Wrentits. It

may be possible to sex species that rarely show prominent CPs by examining the angle

of the CP with respect to the body axis. In males, the CP seems to point straight out,

more or less perpendicular to the body axis. In females, the cloaca seems to point

toward the rear of the bird, somewhat more parallel to the axis of the body. This same

tendency can be used with caution to distinguish the occasionally slightly enlarged

cloacal region of a female from a true class- 1 CP of a male. Class- 2 and - 3 CPs of

males, of course, cannot be confused with those of females in any species except,

possibly, in Wrentits.

2021 MAPS Manual - 55

Please note that all cloacas, whether enlarged or not, stick out. A true CP is

characterized by firmness and lateral swelling. Note also that immature birds DO NOT

get CPs.

BR. PATCH -- Brood Patch. Just prior to and during the time that the female (and in

some species, the male as well) is incubating eggs in a nest, the feathers of the lower

breast and abdomen are lost, vascularization increases just below the skin, and

considerable fluid collects below the skin. The purpose of these changes is, of course,

to facilitate the transfer of heat from the incubating bird’s body to the eggs. The scale

shown below should be used to record the sequence of events in the development and

regression of a brood patch. Again, we strongly recommend using the numeric codes,

although corresponding alpha codes are also given.

NOTE: In hummingbirds and in juveniles of most species, the lower breast and abdomen

are normally unfeathered. This can cause it to look like a brood patch of 1 or 4, but the

area is darker red and unwrinkled and usually has a less distinct margin.

0 - (N = none): No brood patch is present. The lower breast and abdomen are

more-or-less feathered. Unfeathered areas of the breast and abdomen are

smooth, without evident vascularization.

1 - (S = smooth): The lower breast and abdomen feathers are dropped and some

vascularization can be seen, but most of the area is still rather smooth and dark

red.

2 - (V = vascularized): Vascularization is evident, some wrinkles are present, and

some fluid is present under the skin, giving the area a pale, opaque, pinkish

color as opposed to the normal, dark-red muscle color.

3 - (H = heavy): The vascularization is extreme, the brood patch becomes thickly

wrinkled, and much fluid is present under the skin, often giving the region a

yellow blistery appearance. This is the maximum extent of the brood patch and

corresponds closely to the time during which the bird is incubating eggs.

4 - (W = wrinkled): The vascularization mostly has disappeared and the fluid under

the skin is mostly gone. The skin, however, retains many thin, dry-looking,

contracted wrinkles.

5 - (M = molting): The vascularization and fluid and most of the wrinkles are gone.

New pinfeathers are present as the area begins to become re-feathered. Most

birds do not reach class 5 BPs until the nesting season is over and the prebasic

molt has begun.

The sequence of 0 to 5 is rather symmetric. Classes 1 and 5 resemble each other, class

5 being distinguished most easily by the growth of new feathers. Similarly, classes 2 and

4 resemble each other but class 4 can be distinguished by its dry, thin wrinkles, as

opposed to the thick, fluid-filled wrinkles of class 2.

FAT -- Fat Content. Subcutaneous fat is a yellow or orange substance that is stored just

under the skin and is used as fuel for migratory flights and for maintenance during the

colder winter months. Fat generally is stored in three discrete areas that usually begin

56 - 2021 MAPS Manual

filling in the following order: (1) the hollow in the furculum (wishbone) just below the

throat at the top of the breast muscles; (2) the hollow directly under the wing, essentially

in the “wingpit”; and (3) the lower abdomen just anterior to the vent area. The stored fat

can be seen clearly through the nearly- transparent skin and contrasts with the dull, dark-

reddish color of the breast muscles. It is seen most easily by holding the bird on its back

while placing the index and middle fingers on the front and back of the bird’s neck,

stretching the head slightly forward along a line parallel to the body, and gently blowing

the feathers away from the upper breast to expose the furculum. Then check under the

wing and on the abdomen, again by blowing the feathers gently out of the way. Fat

content generally can be assessed quite easily while checking for breeding condition

and body molt. The placement of the field on the banding-data sheets reflects this fact.

The codes shown below should be used to record fat content. Again, the use of the

numeric codes is strongly recommended.

0 - (N = none): No fat in the furculum or anywhere on the body.

1 - (T = trace): A very small amount of fat in the furcular hollow (< 5% filled) but not

enough to cover the bottom of the furculum, and no fat or just a trace of fat is

present under the wing, on the abdomen, or anywhere else on the body; or, if

there is no fat in the furcular hollow, at least a trace of fat is present under the

wing, on the abdomen, or both.

2 - (L = light): The bottom of the furculum is completely covered but the furcular

hollow is less than 1/3 filled, and a small amount of fat may be present under

the wing, on the abdomen, or both; or, if there is no fat in the furcular hollow, a

covering pad of fat is definitely present under the wingpit and, usually, on the

abdomen.

3 - (H = half): The furcular hollow is about half full (actually anywhere from 1/3 to

2/3 filled), and a covering pad of fat is definitely present under the wingpit and,

usually, on the abdomen; or, if there is no fat in the furcular hollow, a thick layer

of fat occurs under the wing and on the abdomen.

4 - (F = filled): The furcular hollow is full (actually anywhere from 2/3 full to level

with the clavicles) and a thick layer of fat also occurs under the wing and on the

abdomen; or, if the fat in the furcular hollow is not full, the fat under the wing as

well as on the abdomen is well mounded.

5 - (B = bulging): The furcular hollow is more than full; that is, the fat is bulging

slightly above the furculum. The fat under the wing as well as that on the

abdomen is also well mounded.

6 - (G = greatly bulging): Fat is bulging greatly above the furculum. Large mounds

of fat occur under the wings and on the abdomen.

7 - (V = very excessive): The fat pads of the furculum, "wingpit," and abdomen are

bulging to such an extent that they join. Nearly the entire ventral surface of the

body is thus covered with fat, and fat even extends onto the neck and head.

Such birds are nicknamed “butterballs.”

2021 MAPS Manual - 57

NOTE: The upper fat classes (5-7) are seen most often just prior to and during

migration.

BODY MLT -- Body Molt. Body molt should be determined by examining the bases of all

the contour feathers on the bird’s body, including all the body feathers as well as the

upper- and underwing coverts and the upper- and undertail coverts. The bases of the

feathers can be exposed by blowing lightly but continuously over the body. The

presence of pinfeathers is a sure sign of the early stages of molt. Later stages can be

recognized by a remnant, scaly sheath at the base of each growing feather. These

sheaths persist until the feathers are fully grown. You should integrate several factors in

making your rating, including the number of feather tracts in molt and the proportion of

feathers in molt in each feather tract. Body molt should be rated according to the scale

shown below. Again, numeric codes are preferred.

0 - (N = none): No body molt. No feathers in sheath or growing.

1 - (T = trace): Only a very few feathers molting anywhere on the bird’s body,

usually in no discernible pattern.

2 - (L = light): A few feathers are molting from a few feather tracts, or some

feathers (fewer than ½) are molting from only one tract. In general, fewer than

1/3 of the contour feathers on the bird are molting.

3 - (M = medium): Some feathers (generally fewer than ½) are molting from most

tracts, or many feathers (generally more than ½ ) are molting from one tract or

a few tracts. In general, from 1/3 to 2/3 of a bird’s contour feathers are in molt.

This class also should be used for a bird in spring whose pre-alternate molt

normally includes only the head but that has nearly all head feathers in molt.

Such a bird would be given a class “3” even though fewer than a of all its

contour feathers are molting.

4 - (H = heavy): Many feathers (generally more than 1/2) are molting from many or

most tracts. In general, more than 2/3 of the contour feathers on the bird are in

molt.

FF MOLT-- Flight-feather Molt. “Flight feathers” is a collective term for primaries,

secondaries, and rectrices but when of recording flight feather molt on the MAPS

banding data sheet, only consider the primaries and secondaries.

Most adult passerines in North America undergo a complete molt following the breeding

season. This molt usually occurs from July to September and most often occurs on the

breeding grounds, although there are some notable exceptions (see Pyle 1997). We refer

to this complete molt in adults as the “prebasic molt” (= “adult prebasic molt” in Pyle

1997). At the same time of year (July to September), juvenile birds also undergo a molt

which, following the new terminology of Howell et al. (2003), we refer to as the

“preformative molt” (= “first prebasic molt” in Pyle 1997). In contrast to the complete

prebasic molt of adults, the preformative molt in juveniles of most passerine species is

“partial”; that is, it includes the body feathers but not the flight feathers, except

sometimes the innermost rectrices (the “decks”) and the innermost secondaries (the

“tertials”). Thus, the presence or absence of symmetric flight-feather replacement in a

58 - 2021 MAPS Manual

bird undergoing molt in the late summer and early fall often provides another good

indicator of the age of the bird. First, be sure to check Pyle (1997) to make sure that the

species does not replace flight-feathers during the preformative molt (termed “first

prebasic molt” in Pyle). Then, examine the primaries and secondaries for the presence

or absence of flight-feather molt, and examine both the left and right sides to be sure

that the replacement is symmetric and not adventitious (the accidental, generally

asymmetric, loss of flight feathers or body feathers anywhere on a bird). Record

flight-feather molt with the codes shown below. In this case, we recommend using alpha

codes since the codes are categorical and do not represent a sequence that can be

expressed numerically.

N - (0 = none): No flight-feather molt.

A - (1 = adventitious): Accidental, adventitious, usually asymmetric flight-feather

molt.

S - (2 = symmetric): Normal, symmetric or nearly-symmetric flight-feather molt,

indicative of prebasic molt in adult birds and preformative molt in some young

birds. A few species also exhibit prealternate flight-feather molt (see Pyle

1997).

J - (3 = juvenile growth): Growth of juvenile flight feathers in fledgling birds (only to

be used for very young birds, just out of the nest, growing their first flight

feathers).

IMPORTANT NOTE: If a bird is exhibiting flight-feather molt, record, as a note, the

particular group(s) of feathers (primaries or secondaries) in which molt is occurring. If

possible, record which feathers are molting. This information will aid greatly in the

verification of age data.

FF WEAR -- Flight-feather Wear. The juvenile generation of flight feathers (primaries,

secondaries, and rectrices) is structurally weaker than later (adult) generations of

feathers and thus may wear and fade at a faster rate. Furthermore, because young birds

grow their juvenile flight feathers considerably before adults molt their flight feathers, at

any given time during the following 12 months, juvenile flight feathers are older than the

new generation of adult flight feathers. The result is that juvenile feathers in the

following spring are likely to show greater degrees of feather wear than do adult

feathers at that time. If so, these data may help to determine the age of birds first

captured in the spring. In addition, hatching year birds in the summer have very fresh,

new flight feathers, while adult flight feathers, before they are molted, are very old and

worn. This also helps facilitate the determination of age in mid-summer birds. Examine

only the outer 4-5 primaries to determine wear. Flight-feather wear should be classified

according to the scale shown below. Again, numeric codes are preferred.

0 - (N = none): No wear at all. The feather edges are perfect. A light-colored edge

exists all the way around the feathers, including the tips.

1 - (S = slight): Very little wear. Feather edges are only slightly worn and no actual

fraying or nicks have occurred. Often, a light-colored edge exists around the

sides of the feathers but not at the tips.

2021 MAPS Manual - 59

2 - (L = light): Relatively light wear. The feathers are definitely worn but with very

little fraying and very few actual nicks.

3 - (M = moderate): The feathers show considerable wear and some very definite

fraying. Nicks and chips are obvious along the vanes.

4 - (H = heavy): The feathers are very heavily worn and frayed. The tips are often

worn completely off.

5 - (X = excessive): The feathers are extremely ragged and torn up, and the shafts

are usually exposed well beyond the vanes. All the tips are usually completely

worn or broken off.

JUV. BDY PL. -- Extent of Juvenile Body Plumage. Most fledgling birds wear a juvenile

plumage that is distinct, at least in texture, from any other plumage of the species.

Juvenile plumage is generally distinguished from adult plumages by loosely-textured

(“fluffy”) contour feathers, often with streaks or spots not found on corresponding adult

feathers. It is important to examine individual feathers in assessing the extent of

juvenile plumage. This plumage may be worn from only a few days to several months,

depending on species and fledging date, until the preformative molt, at which time it is

molted into “formative plumage” (= “first prebasic plumage” in Pyle 1997, which see for

descriptions and timing of juvenile plumage and an extensive discussion of molt). The

extent of juvenile body plumage on a young bird, therefore, is often a good indicator of

how long the individual has been out of its nest. Note that flight feathers (primaries,

secondaries, and rectrices) are generally not replaced during the preformative molt and

should not be considered when assessing the extent of juvenile plumage. The extent of

juvenile body plumage should be recorded according to the scale shown below. Again,

we recommend using the numeric codes rather than the alpha codes. For the purpose of

this field, only juvenile birds have juvenile body plumage! Most birds do retain some

juvenile wing coverts through the first breeding season, but these second-year birds are

considered to have no juvenile body plumage because they have completed the

preformative (and in some cases prealternate) body molt.

3 - (F = full): Full juvenile body plumage. The bird has not yet begun its

preformative (= “first prebasic”) molt.

2 - (G = greater): More than half of the juvenile body plumage remains, although

the bird already has begun its preformative molt. The individual looks mostly

like a juvenile, but some formative (= “first basic”) body plumage is evident.

1 - (L = less): Less than half of the juvenile body plumage remains. The bird has

molted primarily into formative body plumage, but some juvenile body plumage

remains.

0 - (N = none): No juvenile body plumage. The individual has molted already into

full formative body plumage. All adult birds, including SYs, therefore, have “0”

juvenile plumage, even if they have some retained juvenile coverts or flight

feathers.

60 - 2021 MAPS Manual

In summary, a bird is in full (3) juvenile plumage from fledging until the onset of the

preformative (= “first basic” in Pyle 1977) molt. During this molt, juvenile plumage is

replaced by formative (= “first basic” in Pyle 1977) body plumage. Thus, birds in partial

(2 or 1) juvenile plumage must be in molt. Recently-fledged birds still may be growing

their juvenile feathers but should be classed as “3” juvenile plumage. Similarly, birds in

the final stages of the preformative molt may have shed all of their juvenile body

feathers but still be growing their formative feathers; such birds have “0” juvenile

plumage.

MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE - These fields are to be used for adult birds aged more

specifically than AHY (i.e., SY, ASY, TY, or ATY), as well as for any birds (including those

aged HY or AHY) aged by molt limit or plumage (i.e., any time “L” or “P” is used as a

how-aged code). Up to eight fields, which describe individual (or multiple) feather tracts

or non-feathered body parts, may be considered for any individual bird. At least one of

the first seven fields must be filled in if the bird is aged by molt limit or plumage, and at

least one of the fields must be filled in if the bird is aged SY, ASY, TY, or ATY. Refer to

Pyle (1997), Froehlich (2003), and Saracco (2004) for additional discussion and

examples of the use of molt limits and plumage criteria for ageing landbirds. Note that

in Saracco (2004) and in the material that follows, we use the new molt terminology of

Howell et al. (2003) as discussed by Pyle (2004). In particular, as compared to molt

terminology in Pyle (1997), we use “formative feathers” instead of “first basic feathers,”

“preformative molt” instead of “first prebasic molt,” “basic feathers” to mean “adult

basic feathers,” and “prebasic molt” to mean “adult prebasic molt.” The eight MOLT

LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields are:

PRI. COVS - Primary coverts.

SEC. COVS - Secondary coverts (i.e., greater, median, lesser, carpal, and alula coverts

and alula).

PRIMARIES - Primaries.

SECONDS - Secondaries, not including the tertials.

TERTIALS - Tertials.

RECTRICES - Rectrices.

BODY PLUM. - Includes all feather tracts of the head, upperparts and underparts

(including the underwing coverts).

NON-FEATH - Includes all non-feather parts including bill, mouth, eye, legs, and feet.

A note is required if this field is used.

The codes entered in these fields should reflect the feather generation(s) present within

the particular feather tract (or multiple feather tracts in the case of body plumage).

Adventitiously (accidentally) replaced feathers should be ignored (except to provide

context to the other feathers in the tract) because recognizing them as a separate

feather generation will lead to mis-aging birds. Similarly, brand new or actively molting

feathers should be ignored when coding tracts containing actively molting feathers.

2021 MAPS Manual - 61

The use of any of the following three codes during the MAPS season on an adult bird

prior to completion of its prebasic molt indicates that it is a SY bird; the use of any of

these codes on a young bird after its preformative molt (= “first prebasic molt” in Pyle

1997) confirms that it is a HY bird.

J - Juvenile: Feather tract comprised entirely of retained juvenile (or a mix of

juvenile and alternate) feathers, but no formative (= “first basic” in Pyle 1997)

feathers. This code should also be used for NON-FEATH if non-feathered body

parts show characteristics indicative of a young bird.

L - Molt limit: Molt limit between juvenile and formative feathers exists within the

feather tract, regardless of whether or not alternate feathers are also present in

the tract.

F - Formative: Feather tract comprised entirely of formative (or a mix of formative

and alternate) feathers, but no juvenile feathers.

The use of any of the following three codes during the MAPS season indicates that the

bird is not a SY or HY bird:

B - Basic: Feather tract comprised entirely of basic (or a mix of basic and

alternate) feathers (note that basic feathers = “adult basic feathers” in Pyle

1997), but no juvenile or formative feathers. The use of this code during the

MAPS season on an adult bird prior to its prebasic molt indicates that it is an

ASY bird; the use of this code during the MAPS season to describe feather

tracts on an adult bird after its prebasic molt indicates only that it is an AHY

bird.

Individuals of some near-passerine species (e.g., woodpeckers) can be aged to TY or

ATY during the MAPS season (see discussion in Pyle 1997, pp. 39-40) due to incomplete

molts, which result in feathers that are retained through the next prebasic (not

preformative) molt. Such individuals can have up to three generations of juvenile and

basic feathers present within the same feather tract (these species do not acquire

alternate feathers). Two codes are to be used to distinguish cases in which juvenile and

basic (rather than juvenile and formative) feathers are present, from situations in which

two generations of basic (rather than formative and basic) feathers are present:

R - Retained: Both juvenile and basic (rather than juvenile and formative) feathers

are present within the tract (e.g., see Figs. 25 and 26 in Froehlich 2003). The

use of this code during the MAPS season on an adult bird prior to its prebasic

molt indicates that it is a TY bird; the use of this code during the MAPS season

to describe feather tracts on an adult bird after its prebasic molt indicates that

it is a SY bird. Typically, only used for woodpeckers.

M - Mixed: Multiple generations of basic feathers are present in the tract (e.g., see

Fig. 27 in Froehlich 2003). The use of this code during the MAPS season on an

adult bird prior to its prebasic molt indicates that it is an ATY bird; the use of

this code during the MAPS season to describe feather tracts on an adult bird

62 - 2021 MAPS Manual

after its prebasic molt indicates only that it is an ASY bird. Typically, only used

for woodpeckers.

The following two codes, which can be used during the MAPS season (prior to the

prebasic molt) to distinguish adult (AHY) from young (HY) birds, are generally not useful

for ageing adult birds to more specific age classes (i.e., SY, ASY, TY, ATY):

A - Alternate: body feather tracts contain at least some alternate feathers – or –

the entire tract of wing coverts is of alternate plumage. If ANY juvenile,

formative, or basic feathers are present in a wing covert tract, the alternate

feathers should be ignored and the code for the feather tract should be based

on the other feathers, that is “J”, “L”, “F”, or “B”.

N - Non-juvenile: Feathers in this tract are definitely not juvenile feathers (or the

non-feathered body part is not characteristic of a young bird), but whether or

not they are formative or basic feathers cannot be determined with confidence.

Note that if primary coverts are coded “J” and a molt limit exists between the

primary coverts and the secondary coverts, the secondary coverts must be

formative feathers and, thus, must be coded “F”, not “N”, even though formative

and basic secondary coverts might be indistinguishable from each other. The

code “N” should only be used as a last resort; every effort should be made to

identify appropriate feather tracts to formative or basic. Often, this is best

accomplished by considering the tract in the context of other tracts which, for

example, have perhaps been reliably aged juvenile. This code should also be

used for NON-FEATH if non-feathered body parts show characteristics

indicative of an adult bird.

The following code should be used for feather tracts examined, but not meeting any of

the above criteria:

U - Unknown: This code should be used for any feather tract or non-feathered body

part that is examined, but that shows ambiguous characteristics or that cannot

be coded with confidence.

Finally, LEAVE BLANK any field representing a feather tract or non-feathered body part

that was not examined for any reason, including cases where that feather tract provides

no useful information for ageing the bird.

As an example of the use of these fields, consider the age determination of a SY bird

(i.e., AGE = 5) prior to its prebasic molt. The age of SY birds can be determined by the

retention of juvenile feathers, which will be evident in some feather tracts but not others

(depending on the extent of the preformative molt). Any feather tract for which retained

juvenile feathers are evident will have either a “J” or “L” entered in its field, depending on

whether molt limits are between or within feather tracts, respectively. If the molt limit is

between feather tracts, the tract with juvenile feathers would be coded “J” and the tract

with formative feathers would be coded “F.” If the molt limit is within the feather tract,

the tract would be coded “L.” In each of these cases where a molt limit between juvenile

and formative feathers can be discerned, the bird should be aged by molt limit (HOW

AGED = L). If, however, a molt limit cannot be discerned, but the juvenile feathers

2021 MAPS Manual - 63

present can be distinguished as juvenile (as opposed to basic) feathers by their

appearance alone (i.e., color, shape, quality, or wear), the bird would be aged by plumage

(HOW AGED = P). Remember, any feather tract or non-feathered body part that was

examined, but for which a code could not be determined, should have a “U” entered in its

field.

As another example, consider an ASY bird (i.e., AGE = 6) prior to its prebasic molt. Birds

of this age are typically distinguished by having undergone a complete prebasic molt B

adjacent feather tracts generally show little if any contrast in quality or wear. Such birds

should have a “B” entered in all fields for which the basic feathers present can be

distinguished as basic (as opposed to juvenile) feathers by their appearance alone (i.e.,

color, shape, quality, or wear), and should be aged by plumage (HOW AGED = P). They

should not be aged by molt limit (HOW AGED = L) because there is no molt limit. Note

that any alternate feathers present provide no information as to whether the individual is

a SY or ASY bird.

As a third example, consider a species that can undergo a complete preformative molt

(e.g., a Northern Cardinal). When examining an adult of these species during the

breeding season, you may find that all of the feathers are of a single generation (i.e., no

molt limits). Because formative and basic feathers appear identical in this species, you

will not be able to age the bird specifically to SY or ASY and so the bird must be aged

AHY (i.e., AGE = 1). Such birds should have “N” entered in all fields for which the

formative or basic feathers present can be distinguished as non-juvenile feathers by

their appearance alone (i.e., color, shape, quality, or wear), and should be aged by

plumage (HOW AGED = P). If a molt limit is present in these species, the limit must be

between juvenile and formative feathers and "N" should not be used in any field because

evidence for the existence of formative feathers is provided in context by the presence

of juvenile feathers. Therefore, the bird must be aged SY (AGE = 5). Birds of species that

can undergo a complete preformative molt can never be aged ASY (AGE = 6) in the field.

Finally, it is possible that various feather tracts in an individual bird will show conflicting

characteristics (i.e., characteristics that indicate different age classes). When making an

age determination for such a bird, give more weight to tracts that are more reliable or

have the most obvious reliable features. Although it is not necessary that all tracts in a

record agree, you should be confident in your ultimate age designation. During the

MAPS season, a bird with no reliable feather tracts or a bird for which conflicting

characteristics make age determination difficult should be aged as AHY (AGE = 1) prior

to the prebasic molt and as indeterminable (AGE = 0) after the prebasic (or

preformative) molt.

WING -- Wing Chord. Record wing chord (the length of the unflattened wing) to the

nearest mm. See Pyle (1997) or Ralph et al. (1993) for an explanation of the technique.

Unless there is little or no overlap in wing lengths between sexes (e.g., icterids), DO NOT

sex birds by wing length alone in the absence of population-specific wing-chord data.

BODY MASS -- Using an electronic balance, record the mass of the bird to the nearest

tenth of a gram. If an electronic balance is not available, record the weight of the bird to

the nearest 0.5 gram using a Pesola (or other spring-operated) scale.

64 - 2021 MAPS Manual

STATUS -- Record status as a single, three-digit code as shown in Bird Banding Offices

1991 (revised 1992); http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbl/manual/status.cfm. The most-

frequent codes are “300” - normal wild bird captured, banded, and released;

“301” - normal wild bird captured, banded and color-banded, and released; and

“500” - injured bird (see DISP). In addition to these standard status codes, please use

code “000” for all birds that were not banded or that died prior to release. Please note

that status “000” birds are now requested to be included in schedules submitted to the

banding offices if they are mortalities. Live released unbanded birds with status "000"

are not to be included on schedules.

DATE (MO/DAY) -- Month/day. Record the date of capture as month and day, all in

numbers. The year is entered once on the top of the form. Record all months and days

as two-digit numbers (i.e., June is written “06”). The first entry on a page for each date

must be written out completely; subsequent entries for that date may be entered as “>.”

CAPTURE TIME -- Using the 24-hour clock, record, to the nearest 10 minutes, the

starting time of the net run on which the bird was extracted. Thus, all birds extracted (or

escaping) on a given net run will have the same capture time. This is necessary for

standardizing effort between years. Do not enter the time at which the bird was

extracted, processed, or released. Always enter three digits. Note that the ultimate zero

is preprinted on the form; e.g., 6:24 a.m. = 062(0), 1:48 p.m. = 135(0).

STATION -- Record the four-character code for the MAPS station as determined during

station registration.

NET -- Enter a two-digit, numeric code (e.g., “06”) for the net site at which the bird was

captured. It is important that net codes not include alpha characters nor be more than

two characters long. Please enter "?" into this field if the net number is unknown.

DISP -- Disposition. Enter a code from the list below indicating the final disposition of

any injured or dead bird. A bird is considered “injured” if its survival probability is thought

to be compromised, or for healed injuries, could previously been compromised; thus, a

minor flesh wound or loss of a few feathers is generally not worthy of note. Any injured

or dead bird also should have a status code of “500” or “000,” respectively.

M - Malformed (deformity such as crossed mandibles)

O - Old (healed) injury.

I - Ill or diseased.

S - Stress or shock.

E - Eye injury.

T - Tongue injury.

W - Wing injury (unable to fly).

B - Body injury.

L - Leg injury.

P - Predator-caused mortality.

2021 MAPS Manual - 65

D - Death due to a cause other than predation.

R - Band removed from bird and then bird released bandless. Only should occur

for leg injuries where other leg cannot be banded.

NOTE NUMBER -- Enter a number (starting with “1” on each page) if additional

information needs to be recorded, and record this information with the corresponding

note number in the NOTE field on the back of the banding-data sheet. Occasionally,

individual records that technically cannot be considered MAPS data are included on

MAPS banding-data sheets. These records must be identified as non-MAPS in order to

avoid including them in constant-effort analyses. Mark these records by recording “NM”

in the NOTE NUMBER field. Occasionally notes associated with a record indicate that

the species determination for a recapture or an unbanded bird was uncertain. Mark

these records by recording “QS” in the NOTE NUMBER field.

FTHR. PULL -- Enter a code from the list below indicating which feathers were pulled

during this capture event. Only record this information when the feathers are actually

pulled, not on a recaptured bird that has previously had feathers pulled. If no feathers

were pulled, leave the field blank.

O - Outer two rectrices were pulled (i.e., rectrix 6 from both the left and right

side of the tail). Previously, this was indicated by FTHR. PULL = P.

I - An inner and an outer rectrix were pulled (i.e., rectrix 1 from one side and

rectrix 6 from the other side were pulled).

NOTE -- Record notes on the back of the banding-data sheet. These include

characterizations of examined feather tracts in adult birds (see AHY/SY/ASY/TY/ATY

above). Other examples of notes include measurements of difficult-to-identify species

such as Empidonax flycatchers; documentation of rarities or extralimital species;

suspected age or sex determinations of birds given age code “0” or “9” or sex code “U”

or “X”; details of any “O” (other) code for HOW AGED or HOW SEXED; explanations for

injured, dead, and unbanded birds; and sequence of color bands, if present. Please be

liberal in your note-taking, especially to indicate which, if any, flight feathers are missing,

erupting, or growing.

A strategy for ageing and sexing birds

A useful strategy for ageing and sexing is to complete the skull, cloacal

protuberance, brood patch, molt, wear, and juvenile plumage fields first (that is, after

identifying the bird and banding it or, if a recapture, reading and recording the band

number). In most cases, ageing and sexing should be straightforward if you keep the

following breeding-season “rules” in mind:

 A skull of 0 to 4 indicates a hatching year bird (except in a few species such as

cuckoos that may never progress beyond 4); a skull of 5 or 6 indicates an adult.

 Presence of a CP indicates an adult male (except in Wrentits).

66 - 2021 MAPS Manual

 Presence of a BP indicates an adult and, in most species, a female (for exceptions

see "Sex" in individual species accounts (Pyle 1997) or “List of species in which

males can develop brood patches” at

http://www.birdpop.org/pages/mapsDataForms.php) on the IBP website. A full (class

3) BP indicates a female (except in cuckoos, kingfishers, woodpeckers, Clark’s

Nutcracker, and Wrentit, in which males develop full brood patches).

 Heavy body molt in the absence of symmetric flight-feather molt generally indicates a

hatching year bird. Conversely, symmetric flight-feather molt, especially of the

primaries, indicates an adult in most species (see "Molt" in individual species

accounts (Pyle 1997) for exceptions).

 Flight-feather wear of 3 or greater generally indicates an adult.

 Presence of juvenile body plumage indicates a hatching year bird.

If your data conflict with one another, look again! And remember that the absence of

CP, BP, molt, or wear is not, by itself, conclusive evidence of anything!

If you use how-aged codes of “L” or “P”, you must fill in at least one of the first seven

MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields. Also, if you have an adult bird prior to its prebasic

molt, please go on and attempt to age it more specifically to SY, ASY, etc., by recording

the feather generations of the relevant feather groups (or soft-part features) in the

appropriate MOLT LIMITS & PLUMAGE fields.

2021 MAPS Manual - 67

SUMMARY OF MIST-NETTING RESULTS

This summary serves as a check to ensure that all of your capture records C for newly

banded, unbanded, and recaptured birds C have been submitted and that the dates and

station are correct for each capture. Please complete this form using your raw banding-

data sheets at the end of each banding day. Please do not fill out this sheet from your

computer file! Remember to count changed and added bands only once (as recaptures)

and to omit lost and destroyed bands. Refer to Figure 9 for an example.

Instructions for completing the Summary of Mist-Netting Results form

Location: Record your four-character location code.

Station: Record your four-character station code.

Intended Period: Record the intended period for the date operated.

Date: Record the month and day of the date operated.

New: Record the number of new individuals banded. Remember, if a bird dies before

processing, this individual should be recorded on the data sheet as an unbanded bird.

The band that was applied to the individual should be taken off the bird and be recorded

as destroyed.

Unbanded: Record the number of birds captured but not banded.

Recaps: Record the number of recaptures. Remember that previously-banded birds that

escape or are inadvertently released before the band number is read should be recorded

and counted as recaptures (BAND NUMBER remains blank on the banding data sheet).

Total: Tally the number of new, unbanded, and recaptured birds for each day of

operation. At the end of the season, record the totals of these three categories at the

bottom of the form.

68 - 2021 MAPS Manual

2021 MAPS SUMMARY OF MIST-NETTING RESULTS

LOCATION CODE: BIPA STATION CODE: UPED

MAPS PERIODS

Period One: May 01 - May 10

Period Two: May 11 - May 20

Period Three: May 21 - May 30

Period Four: May 31 - June 09

Period Five: June 10 - June 19

Period Six: June 20 - June 29

Period Seven: June 30 - July 09

Period Eight: July 10 - July 19

Period Nine: July 20 - July 29

Period Ten: July 30 - August 08

For each banding date, fill in the number of captures on your Banding, Unbanded and

Recaptures banding-data sheets. Assign each date to the period for which your banding

effort was intended, following the guidelines in the Manual.

Intende

d Period

Date

New

Un-

banded

Recap

Total

Intended

Period

Date

New

Un-

banded

Recap

Total

E.g. 3

05/21

05/30

05/28

06/05

06/07

06/14

06/24

07/06

07/13

07/25

08/04

Total

169

227

Total

FIGURE 9. Completed MAPS Summary of Mist-Netting Results form.

2021 MAPS Manual - 69

BREEDING STATUS LIST

Many of the individual adult birds captured in the MAPS program are transients that do

not breed at the MAPS station. They include floaters that have not yet acquired a

breeding territory, failed breeders searching for a new mate or new breeding territory,

and post-breeding individuals dispersing from breeding territories to molting and pre-

migration staging areas. Because the presence of such transient individuals negatively

biases adult survival rates, we use a transient modification (Pradel et al. 1997) of

Cormack-Jolly-Seber mark-recapture models (Pollock et al. 1990) to estimate the

survival rate of resident individuals and the proportion of residents among newly

captured birds. We suggest, however, that the proportion of residents in the adult

population may be more than a simple nuisance parameter. Rather, we suggest that this

proportion may vary in a predictable manner as a function of population change and,

thus, may be of fundamental importance to avian population dynamics. In order to

obtain the most useful measure of the proportion of residents, we pool data for a given

species only from those stations at which the species is a regular or usual breeder, that

is, only from those stations where at least one individual of the species was known to be

a summer resident attempting to breed during more than half of the years the station

has been operating.

As part of MAPS protocol, therefore, we ask MAPS operators to record breeding status

information on all species seen or heard during each visit to each station. We ask

operators to record anecdotal observations of active nests; birds carrying nesting

material, food, or fecal sacs; distraction displays; courtship; copulation; and territorial

singing or drumming using a protocol similar to that employed in Breeding Bird Atlas

projects. These observations are recorded on the stations’ Breeding Status List. Using

these data, coupled with capture data, MAPS operators are asked to determine the

breeding (summer residency) status of all species at each station each year.

In addition to providing unbiased data on the proportion of residents in the population,

this protocol provides a unique and extremely valuable database, one which allows the

construction of temporally and spatially explicit species-habitat relationships based on

actual breeding status at each of the hundreds of MAPS stations. This database can

overcome many of the limitations of traditional species-habitat relationships derived

from point-count data. Such limitations are caused by including species as breeders

that are in fact only transients at the location in question; and by excluding actual

breeding species at the location in question because they are not encountered within

the short duration of most point counts.

It is important to understand that what we are asking you to determine by asking for

breeding status is whether or not any portion of at least one breeding territory or home

range of a given species includes any portion of the area of your MAPS station.

Remember, breeding status is determined only for the area contained within the

boundaries of your MAPS station, NOT the preserve, county, or any other area in which

your station is located. Remember also that the boundaries of your station include all of

70 - 2021 MAPS Manual

the area extending outward for 100 m from your outermost nets. In general, typical

MAPS stations include an area of about 20 ha (50 acres).

Station-specific Breeding Status Lists (Fig.10) are included with the spring email sent to

MAPS operators in mid-April. Operators of stations from which no previous data have

been received by IBP will receive a blank Breeding Status List with the four-letter alpha

location code, four-letter alpha station code, unique five-number numerical station code

assigned by IBP (“Sta”), and the current year preprinted on the form. Before the season

begins, such operators should list in the SPECIES CODE field, the four letter code for the

species (e.g., “BCCH” for Black-capped Chickadee) from the most current Four-letter and

six-letter alpha codes for birds recorded from the American Ornithological’ Society check-

list area (Pyle and DeSante 2003). This list (further updated in Pyle and DeSante [up

through 2019 from Chesser et. al 2019) can be downloaded from The Institute for Bird

Populations’ website at http://www.birdpop.org/AlphaCodes.htm. Operators of stations

from which previous MAPS data have been received by IBP will receive a preprinted

Breeding Status List that lists all species ever encountered at the station in American

Ornithological Society (AOS). checklist order. (If data were not submitted using

MAPSPROG, species recently added to the list by the operator may not be included on

the preprinted list because of a backlog in data entry and processing at IBP). Species

that are encountered at the station during the MAPS season, but that are not on the

preprinted (or anticipated) list, should be added to the end of the list. At the end of the

season, the completed Breeding Status List will thus include all species detected at the

station during all breeding seasons that the station has been operated, not just those

species detected during the current year or only those species for which individuals

have been captured.

Breeding Status Lists for stations from which previous MAPS data has been received

will also contain filled-in BRSTAT codes for each species. The BRSTAT code is the

cumulative breeding status at the station for all previous years of operation, a kind of

breeding status summary. First time operators’ Breeding Status Lists will have a dash

preprinted in BRSTAT. For each species, the BRSTAT code represents a summary of all

of the yearly breeding status codes. The following BRSTAT codes are in use:

B - Regular breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident during all

years the station was operated.

U - Usual breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for more

than ½ of the years the station was operated, but not all years.

O - Occasional breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for ½

or fewer of the years the station was operated.

T - Transient. The station lies within the species’ breeding range, but no

individual of the species was a summer resident at that station during any

year.

A - Altitudinal disperser. A species which breeds only at lower elevations than

that of the station, and which disperses to higher elevations after breeding.

M - Migrant. The station falls outside of the species’ normal breeding range.

2021 MAPS Manual - 71

? - Unidentified. Individuals of the taxon were not identified to species; no

breeding status was assigned.

These codes are provided to inform you of the overall breeding status for each species.

It is important that you determine each new year’s breeding status independently of the

BRSTAT.

PERIOD STATUS: The Period Breeding Status (i.e., Confirmed - C; Probable - P, Observed

- O) of each species encountered during each period of operation at each station must

be recorded on the list for that station, either during the day as the birds are detected or

at the end of the day before leaving the field. Record, using upper case letters, the

highest hierarchical Period Breeding Status (Table 3 or Fig. 10) detected for each

species that period; and, using lower case letters, the appropriate Daily Behavior Sub-

Codes (Table 3 or Fig. 10) Associated with that Period Breeding Status. Note that sub-

codes can only be combined with other sub-codes at the same breeding status level. For

example, ‘Cf’ and ‘Obe’ are acceptable combinations; ‘Cs’ and ‘Obs’ are not. Use a ‘-‘ to

indicate that a species was not observed in a given period. Note that the certainty

______________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Hierarchical categories of Period Breeding Status (upper case) and associated

Daily Behavior Sub-Codes (lower case) for MAPS Breeding Status List

The criteria used to designate Period Breeding Status are as follows:

Confirmed (C): The following criteria confirm a species as a breeder:

(n) current year’s nest found in the study area with eggs or young, in the

process of being built, or already depredated or abandoned;

(m) adult seen gathering or carrying nesting material to a likely nest site in the

study area;

(f) adult seen carrying food or fecal sac to or from a likely nest site in the

study area;

(d) distraction display or injury feigning by an adult bird;

(l) capture of a young bird incapable of sustained flight (a “local”), or very

young (stub-tailed) fledglings being fed by parents in the study area.

Probable (P): The following criteria suggest, but do not confirm a species as a

breeder:

(t) other territorial behavior observed in the study area;

(s) territorial song or drumming heard.

Observed (O): The following criteria indicate the species was detected, but with no

evidence of local breeding:

(b) bird captured or banded. NOTE: The presence of a brood patch or cloacal

protuberance on a single individual is not valid evidence of local breeding;

(e) bird encountered (seen or heard) in the study area but with no territorial

behavior;

(o) bird encountered flying over the study area.

Absent ( -- ): The species was not encountered during that period.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

72 - 2021 MAPS Manual

of Period Breeding Status codes likely will decrease for most species as the season

progresses and breeding behavior diminishes. For example, a species recorded as a

probable breeder in May and confirmed as a breeder in June may drop back to a

probable breeder in July and show no signs of breeding (or disappear altogether) by

August. Please also include observations at the station that were not from the banding

day when determining the code for the period. E.g. if a species was only observed during

the banding day but during a subsequent visit to the station the next day for non-

banding purposes the species was heard singing, the period code should be Ps, not Oe.

YEAR STATUS: The current year breeding status. At the end of the season, review your

period status codes and enter the apparent breeding status for the current year for each

species in the right-hand column, using one of the following nine categories:

Breeder (B): Summer resident. A Breeder is a species within its normal breeding range

that is confirmed or determined to be a breeder or summer resident within the station

(i.e., at least one individual was determined to reside at least partly within the station

boundary during the breeding season of the year under consideration). It needn't be

proven that the species actually bred, or even found a mate. Summer residents outside

their normal breeding range should be given the code “E” (see below).

A species automatically qualifies for a Breeder (“B”) Year Status if it was given a

Confirmed (“C”) Period Breeding Status in one or more periods. Thus, a current year’s

nest found in the study area with eggs or young, in the process of being built, or already

abandoned or depredated qualifies the species for a “B” Year Code, as does the sighting

of an adult carrying nesting material, food, or a fecal sac to or from a likely nesting site,

or doing a distraction display or feigning injury within the station. The sighting of very

young (stub-tailed) fledglings being fed by parents within the study area also qualifies

the species for a “B” Year Code. Probably the most common means of classifying a

species as a Breeder is by the presence of at least one territorial (singing or drumming)

male in the study area throughout the breeding season. Note that such territorial

behavior is coded “Ps” (probable breeder) for individual periods, but if it occurs over

much of the season, the species should be considered a Breeder’ (“B”) rather than a

Likely Breeder (“L”). Multi-period observations of courtship, copulation, or other

territorial or mating behaviors also qualifies the species as a Breeder, especially if

coupled with song or drumming in other periods. In summary, note that it is acceptable

to assign a year status of “B” to a species that exhibits persistent territorial singing

during the height of the breeding season, as well as to those confirmed by nest

sightings, fledglings or other “hard evidence” of breeding activity.

Banding data are also useful for determining breeding (summer residency) status.

Within-year recaptures or resightings of an adult, at least seven days apart and with at

least one occurrence during the height of the breeding season, indicates a summer

resident, as does the recapture of an adult during the height of the breeding season over

two or more years. Note that the species is given a “B” code for the first and last year

that it was captured during the height of the breeding season and for all intervening

years. The capture of a single adult in breeding condition (i.e., with a greatly enlarged

cloacal protuberance or a heavily vascularized brood patch) is not sufficient evidence to

classify the species as a breeder because failed breeders often wander widely before

2021 MAPS Manual - 73

2021 MAPS BREEDING STATUS LIST

List all species ever encountered at the station!

Location: B I P A Station: U P E D Sta: 1 6 6 9 8

Period Status Codes: Please record only the highest hierarchical breeding status observed during each period (C

supersedes P and O; P supersedes O), and the appropriate daily sub-codes (hierarchically listed) describing the

behavior or observation indicating that status (e.g., Cn, Pc, or Ob). If a species wasn’t observed, use a ---. If a

station was operated two or more days in a period, record only the highest breeding status observed.

C = Confirmed Breeder

n = current year’s nest found

m = carrying nest material

f = carrying food or fecal sac

d = distraction display l = local bird

P = Probable Breeder

c = courtship/copulation

t = other territorial behavior

s = song/drumming

O = Observed

b = banded/captured

e = encountered

o = flyover

= Absent

ENTER DATE (mm/dd) FOR INTENDED PERIOD BELOW

SPECIES

CODE

BRSTAT

05/28

06/05

06/14

06/24

07/06

07/13

07/25

08/04

2021 YEAR

STATUS

HAWO

ACFL

YTVI

REVI

Cnf

TRES

CACH

WOTH

GCTH

AMRO

GRCA

NOPA

Obe

YWAR

Obe

AMRE

OBSERVER’S

INITIALS

CC/

BRSTAT: Cumulative breeding status for all previous years

of operation

B = Regular Breeder (all years) A= Altitudinal Disperser

U = Usual Breeder (>, not all, years) M = Migrant

O = Occasional Breeder (< years) ? = Uncertain Species ID

T = Transient

2021 YEAR STATUS: Current year breeding status

B = Breeder M = Migrant

L = Likely Breeder E = Extralimital Breeder

T = Transient ? = Uncertain Species ID

A = Altitudinal Disperser --- = Absent

H = Higher Altitude (than usual) Breeder

FIGURE 10. Completed MAPS Breeding Status List

74 - 2021 MAPS Manual

losing their BPs and CPs. However, several individuals showing breeding characteristics

at various times during the season could warrant a “B” designation for the species for

the year.

Likely Breeder (L): Probable summer resident. A species within its normal breeding

range that was suspected to be a breeder or summer resident but was encountered

somewhat infrequently during the breeding season of the year under consideration is

classified as a Likely Breeder. This code permits a degree of uncertainty when

determining single-year breeding status and need be used only for species that were

suspected summer residents but were encountered infrequently during the field season.

We suspect this may happen with species that reside on the fringes of the station or are

difficult to detect. To avoid the uncertainty associated with the status “L,” all efforts

should be made to assign one of the more definitive status codes to each species

whenever possible.

Please note that while continual territorial singing throughout the breeding season

would merit a “B” status, singing on only two or three different days may indicate an “L,”

or even a “T.” In such cases, one should consider the likelihood of summer residency in

terms of habitat suitability for that species, the dates on which the singing occurs, and

any behavioral knowledge of that species. As shown in Figure 10, two instances of a

Hairy Woodpecker drumming in June at a station within its breeding range (and with no

additional records) likely (but not definitively) indicates summer residency, and thus

merits a year status of “L.” However, two instances of Swainson's Thrushes singing in

May within their breeding range, again with no additional records, would not suggest a

single-year status of “L,” as this species is known to sing during migration and to sing

well into the season if a summer resident. The year status, in this latter case, should be

“T.” When the cumulative breeding status (BRSTAT) is calculated, years coded “L” are

treated as if they were coded “B.”

Transient (T): A species that breeds in the general area of the station (perhaps even

less than a kilometer away) but, because of habitat or patchy distribution, does not

breed at the station is classified as a Transient. In order to qualify as a Transient, the

station must lie within the breeding range of the species, but no individuals of the

species can be thought to be breeders or summer residents within the station (see

above definition of “Breeder”). Transient individuals may be adults within their normal

breeding range that move through the station during the breeding season but do not

establish a territory or home range within the station boundaries. Early in the season,

such adult individuals could be birds still in migration, birds that have completed

migration but not yet established territories, or birds that might never establish

territories that year (floaters). For example, capturing one or two individuals of a rarely

observed species in June with well-developed CPs or BPs would not permit categorizing

that species as anything other than a transient. Mid-season transients could be failed

breeders from beyond the station boundary that are simply moving through the station.

Later in the season, transient individuals could be adults or young in post-breeding

dispersal, or even very early individuals in fall migration. A species may be a Transient at

one station within a location and a Breeder at another station.

2021 MAPS Manual - 75

Altitudinal Disperser (A): A species which breeds only at lower elevations than that of

the station and which disperses to higher elevations after breeding. In the Sierra and, to

a lesser extent, the Cascades and other western montane areas, this is a common

phenomenon for Orange-crowned Warblers, Nashville Warblers, and House Wrens. In

order to qualify as an altitudinal disperser, the station must lie upslope from the

breeding range of the species.

Higher Altitude (than normal) Breeder (H): An altitudinal disperser that has resided

during the height of the breeding season (not just during the post-breeding period) in a

given year above its normal breeding elevation. When the cumulative breeding status

(BRSTAT) is calculated, years coded “H” are treated as if they were coded “A.”

Migrant (M): The station does not lie within the breeding range of the species, and the

species did not reside at the station during the breeding season. Migrant species may

pass through the station on migration, or reside through the winter. Specifically, the

species’ breeding range, as delineated by range maps and descriptions, does not include

the specific geographic location of the station. (The primary references we use are the

range maps from Birds of North America Online, The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of

Eastern North America and The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. We

also use National Geographic's Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Peterson's

Field Guide to Western Birds and Field Guide to Eastern Birds, Birds of North America

Online (Rodewald 2015) and range descriptions in the A.O.U. Checklist of North

American Birds [1957 for subspecies, 1983, and 1998]; and status codes in DeSante and

Pyle's Distributional Checklist of North American Birds, 1986).

There is one important exception to the above definition of Migrant. If a station lies

within a mountain range at a higher elevation than a given species breeding range, but

adults and young of the species habitually move through it during post-breeding and

juvenile dispersal, respectively (as in a foothill species that disperses upslope), the

species should be classified as an Altitudinal Disperser (A; see above) at the station

rather than a Migrant (M). The inclusion of capture data for such species from such

stations can provide important information for regional productivity indices. A Migrant

status for such a species would cause it to be overlooked during productivity analyses.

Finally, do not confuse the terms “Migrant” and “migratory”; migratory species can be

classified as Migrants, Altitudinal Dispersers, Transients, Likely Breeders, or Breeders.

Extralimital Breeder (E): A summer-resident species that is outside of its normal

breeding range. As with species given a code of “B,” it need not be proven that the

species actually bred, or even found a mate; merely residing at the station during the

breeding season is sufficient to warrant a code of “E.” These vagrant individuals are not

given a code of “B,” as they are unlikely to return in subsequent years; in pooled

analyses, a “B” code could bias survivorship estimates for the species. When the

cumulative breeding status (BRSTAT) is calculated, years coded “E” are treated as if

they were coded “M.”

Unidentified (?): This code is used primarily for observed (non-captured) individuals that

were not identified to species. Examples include UNGU, UNCR, UNSW. This code is also

used if an unidentified individual was captured but not banded, for example UNHU or an

76 - 2021 MAPS Manual

unbanded UEFL. A species that has been banded would receive a breeding status of “?”

if, during verification, the species identification of an individual became uncertain and no

other individuals of that species were encountered in that year.

Absent ( -- ): No individual of the species was detected at the station C neither

captured, heard nor seen C for the duration of the MAPS field season in the year under

consideration. This code applies both to species previously captured/encountered at the

station in a past field season and to those anticipated but not yet encountered.

OBSERVER’S INITIALS: Record the initials of the people involved with collecting

breeding status data for each intended period.

Please note that it is very important to classify each species correctly, to the best of

your ability, within the boundaries of your station (i.e., within 100 m of nets). Inclusion of

data for a species in mark-recapture analyses from stations where it does not regularly

or usually breed will deflate estimates of proportion of residents and lower the precision

of survival-rate estimates as well. However, transients can be included in the calculation

of productivity indices. Bear in mind that the Breeding Status List is annual in nature (i.e.,

you will consider breeding status of each species on a year-by-year basis) and that a

species’ year status may change from one year to the next. Generally, such changes will

be a species changing from Breeder to Likely Breeder or Transient or vice versa, but

occasionally a species can change from an Extralimital Breeder or Migrant to a Breeder

or Transient (or vice versa) as its breeding range changes.

It is important to remember to assign a breeding status each year to all species ever

captured or encountered at the station, and not just to those that were captured during

the most recent field season.

Occasionally, during the verification process, recapture data or other information come

to light that require re-determination of Breeding Status Codes for various species at a

station. IBP biologists may change some Year Codes and will want you to examine their

changes.

Additionally, if non-MAPS data is included with your submission, the following three

additional codes may be used in your breeding status files:

D = The species was only encountered at the station outside of the MAPS

season, but the station lies within breeding range of the species.

W = The species was only encountered at the station outside of the MAPS

season, and the station lies outside of the breeding range of species.

@ = The Breeding Status List is missing or incomplete for this species this year.

2021 MAPS Manual - 77

DATA SUBMISSION

Making sure the required data from each station become a part of the compiled MAPS

database is the final C and crucial C step in operating a MAPS station. To maximize the

use that can be made of the data, all elements listed below must be included. It is also

important to ensure that data submission occurs within a reasonable amount of time;

delays hold up analyses, prevent us from providing you with timely feedback, and require

us to spend time rounding up outstanding data.

What data to submit

Each year, for each location, MAPS operators must submit the following data:

- Banding data for newly banded birds

- Banding data for recaptured birds

- Banding data for unbanded birds

- Summary of mist-netting effort data for each station

- Summary of mist-netting results data for each station (if not using

MAPSPROG)

- Breeding status data for each station

Habitat Structure Assessment (HSA) data (including the station map) must also be

submitted for each station during its first year of operation and every five years

following (i.e., sixth year, eleventh year, etc.). However, if substantial habitat change has

occurred within five years as a result rapid succession or catastrophic events

(anthropogenic or natural), a revised HSA, along with the creation of a revised station

map, should be completed. A revised station map should also be submitted anytime that

nets are moved. Be sure to show the locations of the old, as well as the new, nets. Refer

to the HSA Protocol (Nott et al. 2003; which can be downloaded from the IBP website)

for directions on how to create the station map.

In addition, submit a completed Standard Net Opening and Closing Times sheet for each

station at the end of the first season of operation and after any season in which any of

the standard operating times are changed, that is, whenever you have changed any of

the times at which you plan to operate your station in the future.

How to submit MAPS data

Currently, data may be submitted to the MAPS program in three ways: electronically

using MAPSPROG, electronically not using MAPSPROG, or non-electronically by

submitting hard (paper) copies of all data.

78 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Submitting data through MAPSPROG: Coinciding with the Bird Banding Offices’ effort to

institute electronic data submission for banding schedules, IBP has developed a

Windows-based data entry/import, verification/editing, and error-tracking program

called MAPSPROG for submitting MAPS data to IBP. We strongly encourage all

operators to submit their 2021 data using MAPSPROG, which was introduced on p. 23.

MAPSPROG includes modules to enter and verify your banding, effort, breeding status,

and habitat structure assessment data collected during the 2021 MAPS season.

MAPSPROG is designed to mimic the data verification procedures that have been

developed by IBP over more than 25 years and have been applied to every set of MAPS

data contributed to the MAPS program. The checks embedded in the program will allow

you to see and correct any errors or inconsistencies that occur in your own data and will

help you to improve your data collection. Moreover, submission of data through

MAPSPROG will, in the long run, reduce the amount of time IBP biologists must spend in

verifying data from the over 300 MAPS stations operated each year, thus allowing them

more time and resources to focus on analyses aimed at understanding the causes of

population declines in landbirds and at formulating management and conservation

strategies for them.

The most current version of MAPSPROG, Version 5.5.0, is available for download from

the MAPSPROG web page http://www.birdpop.org/pages/mapsMAPSPROG.php but a

new version will be provided early in the season to accommodate updated WRP codes.

Do NOT use any MAPSPROG version prior to 4.2.1 with your 2021 data. Please check

the IBP website to ensure you have the latest version. To ensure that you have the

latest version of the program, open the program and click on the “Utilities” drop down

menu header. You will see “Version 5.5.0" below the “Utilities” header if you have

updated the program to 5.5.0.

For stations that have run for more than one year, proper use of MAPSPROG requires

that recapture records from the current year be checked against banding data from

previous years in order to correct discrepancies among recaptures and to screen

recaptures for possible misread band numbers. Follow the instructions in “MAPSPROG

Version 4.1: User’s Guide and Manual” (Froehlich et al. 2006), which is also available for

download from the MAPSPROG web page, to append the data from previous years to

your NEWMAPS file at the appropriate stage in the process (between-record

verification). All operators who ran station(s) in 2020 should append their <LOCA>20 file

to NEWMAPS. Operators whose station(s) ran in 2020 and who did not use MAPSPROG

should contact IBP for a file containing their previous years' data.

To ensure that first-time MAPSPROG users are using the program appropriately, IBP will

compare their MAPSPROG output files against output verified by IBP biologist using

IBP’s traditional verification procedures. Once this comparison is completed, IBP will

provide feedback on the results by certifying those operators whose results closely

match ours and by providing recommendations to those whose results suggest that

they encountered considerable difficulties with the program. To undertake these

comparisons, we require paper copies of all data sheets and a copy of RAWMAPS, the

initial raw data file produced by MAPSPROG, regardless of whether the data were

entered or imported into it. To make sure we receive RAWMAPS, follow the instructions

2021 MAPS Manual - 79

in the “Submitting Verified Data Files to IBP” section in the MAPSPROG Version 4.1

User’s Guide when submitting data files. It is extremely important to proof your

RAWMAPS file against your raw data before using MAPSPROG to verify it. MAPSPROG

will facilitate this proofing by allowing you to print out your RAWMAPS file. Thus, all

first time MAPSPROG users, and those who have not yet been certified, must submit

paper copies (we prefer originals, but clear photocopies, including notes, are

acceptable) of all their MAPS data for the year being submitted (including their

Summary of Results form). Once a MAPSPROG user is certified, we anticipate that the

user will continue to submit her/his MAPS data using MAPSPROG and that her/his

MAPSPROG output files will be reliable. Certified MAPSPROG users need not submit

paper copies of any MAPS data (except any revised Standard Net Opening and Closing

Forms or revised stations maps). Please contact Ron Taylor at rtaylor@birdpop.org or

707-789-3224 or Danielle Kaschube at dkasch[email protected] or 609-892-0445 if you

have questions regarding the use of MAPSPROG.

Once the Bird Banding Offices require banding schedules be submitted electronically,

IBP will require MAPS data to be submitted using MAPSPROG. The Bird Banding Offices

is now requiring the use of BANDIT by all banders. As of the release of this manual (April

2021), BANDIT easily imports the file created by MAPSPROG. MAPSPROG will no longer

support creating a banding file for import into BAND MANAGER. Documentation is

available on our website on how to import your MAPSPROG file into BANDIT. If you get

frustrated, please contact us for assistance. We don’t want you to have to enter your

data twice (once into MAPSRPOG and once for BBL submission) and think it is useful

for you to submit MAPSPROG-verified data to the Bird Banding Offices.

MAPSPROG version 4.2.x and later will create an output file, export<yr>.dbf (e.g.

export20.dbf) for import into Bandit 3.1. MAPSPROG version 4.4.x can create both an

export file for Bandit 3.1, export<yr> or for Bandit 4.0, expt4<yr>.dbf (e.g. expt420.dbf).

The export file from versions 5.5.x will contain all records for the current year only.

Additionally, in those very few cases where the species alpha codes in Pyle and DeSante

(2019) differ from those used by the BBL, the alpha codes will be converted to BBL

codes in the export.dbf file. Please use the export<yr>.dbf or expt4<yr>.dbf file instead

of the <loca><yr> file when importing data into BANDIT, to avoid importing a file with

alpha codes not recognized by the BBL. We strongly encourage all MAPS operators to

use MAPSPROG for their data.

Submitting banding data in electronic format other than through MAPSPROG: IBP can

also accept electronic banding data as an e-mail attachment or on a CD in any of three

formats: dBase, Excel, or ASCII. Data for all stations and for all band sizes and capture

codes should be merged into a single file. Please use the template we provide online for

entering banding, effort and breeding status data into Excel. It can be downloaded at

http://www.birdpop.org/docs/misc/MAPS-Materials-Template_2019.xlsx. Using this

template will allow us to more easily import your data into our databases.

If you are entering your data using Access, please export each table within the database

as a separate Excel spreadsheet.

80 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Table 4 (pg 83) shows the file structure that must be used when submitting electronic

banding data not entered using MAPSPROG. Following are explanations of the fields

listed in Table 4; for further details on the codes used, consult the “Collection and

Recording of Banding Data” section of this manual. All character fields should be

entered left-justified and numeric fields right-justified.

LOC - Location. Enter your four-character location code.

BI - Bander's Initials. Enter the two-character bander's initials.

BS - Band size. The purpose of this and the following field is to enable us to

find original data easily. Records on ‘Unbanded’ and ‘Recapture’ sheets

should be entered with band sizes ‘U’ and ‘R’, respectively. Unbanded

birds on new-band sheets should be given the band size for the sheet

PG - Page number.

C - Capture code.

BAND - Band number (always nine digits long).

SPEC - Four-letter species alpha code.

AGE - Age.

HA - How aged.

WRP - Wolfe-Ryder-Pyle plumage and molt code.

SEX - Sex.

HS - How sexed.

SK - Skull.

CP - Cloacal protuberance.

BP - Brood patch.

F - Fat.

BM - Body molt.

FM - Flight-feather molt.

FW - Flight-feather wear.

JP - Juvenile body plumage.

WNG - Wing chord.

WEIGHT - Body mass.

STATUS - Status.

DATE - In dBase, enter as MM/DD/YYYY. In a text file, enter as YYYYMMDD.

TIME - Omit the final ‘0’.

STATION - Station code.

NET - Original net designation. Enter your net number (preferably two digits)

or “?” if net number is unknown, left justified

DISP - Disposition.

NOTE - Enter the note number if the record has a note. Otherwise, leave blank.

PPC - Primary coverts.

SSC - Secondary coverts.

PPF - Primaries.

SSF - Secondaries.

TT - Tertials.

RR - Rectrices.

2021 MAPS Manual - 81

BPL - Includes all feather tracts of the head, upperparts and underparts (this

field is to be used for MAPS data in and subsequent to 2004).

NF - all non-feather parts including bill, mouth, eye, legs, and feet. A note is

required if this column is used.

NOTES - Enter a brief note. This field is only 30 characters long so notes must

be brief.

FTHR. PULL - Enter ‘O’ if the outer two rectrices were pulled or 'I' if an inner and outer

rectrix were pulled. If no feathers were pulled, leave this field blank.

It is imperative that character fields be entered as character fields. dBase will put ‘0’

into a blank numeric field by default, and there is a big difference between blank and

zero! Before submitting electronic banding data, it is extremely important that you proof

your electronic file against the banding-data sheets for data-entry errors. When

submitting electronic data not using MAPSPROG, please remember to send paper

copies of all data sheets not included in your electronic file, e.g., paper copies of your

Summary of Effort, Summary of Results, and Breeding Status List for each station. PDF

scans of the non-entered data sheets can be emailed if you prefer not to send hard

copies.

Submitting paper copies of banding data: Operators who are unable to use MAPSPROG

and are unable to submit electronic data must submit paper copies (hard copy originals,

or photocopies or PDF scans, including notes, are acceptable) of all of the forms

mentioned above, including completed Banding Data Sheets for newly banded birds,

unbanded birds, and recaptured birds; completed Summary of Mist-Netting Effort

forms for each station, completed Summary of Mist-Netting Results forms for each

station, and completed Breeding Status Lists for each station each year. In addition,

such operators must submit paper copies of their completed HSA forms and the

associated station map for each station (once every five years or more often if

substantial habitat change has occurred), and their Standard Net Opening and Closing

Times form (after the first season and whenever they change their standard operation).

Please do not staple data sheets together or put them in binders when submitting data.

Due date

MAPS operators are requested to return their completed data and map(s) to The

Institute for Bird Populations as soon as possible after the completion of the season. In

general, the due date is September 15. The due date for operators using MAPSPROG is

October 15. Data will be accepted after these dates, but late data, especially from long-

standing stations, compromise our ability to conduct analyses and prepare reports on

schedule. However, we would rather receive complete, proofed, carefully-compiled data

packets a little late than incomplete or sloppy packets submitted on schedule.

Where to send data

MAPSPROG files or other electronic files can be e-mailed to our data manager Ron

Taylor at [email protected] or the MAPS Coordinator, Danielle Kaschube, at

[email protected].

82 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Hard copy data packets should be addressed to: MAPS Data Manager, The Institute for

Bird Populations. Our mailing address is PO Box 518, Petaluma, CA 94953 USA.

We will acknowledge receipt of your data; if you do not hear from us within a month of

sending your data, chances are we did not receive them!

2021 MAPS Manual - 83

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 4. MAPS Banding-data file structure for 2021 data

Field Field Name Type Width Dec Description

1 LOC Character 4 Location code

2 BI Character 2 Bander's initials

3 BS Character 2 Band size

4 PG Character 3 Data page number

5 C Character 1 Capture code

6 BAND Character 9 Band number

7 SPEC Character 4 Four-letter species alpha code

8 AGE Character 1 Age

9 HA Character 2 How aged

10 WRP Character 3 Wolfe-Ryder-Pyle plumage code

11 SEX Character 1 Sex

12 HS Character 2 How sexed

13 SK Character 1 Skull pneumatization

14 CP Character 1 Cloacal protuberance score

15 BP Character 1 Brood patch score

16 F Character 1 Fat content score

17 BM Character 1 Body molt score

18 FM Character 1 Flight feather molt score

19 FW Character 1 Flight feather wear score

20 JP Character 1 Juvenile plumage score

21 WNG Numeric 3 0 Wing chord

22 WEIGHT Numeric 5 1 Body mass

23 STATUS Character 3 Status upon release

24 DATE Date 8 Capture date

25 TIME Character 3 Time of capture

26 STATION Character 4 Station code

27 NET Character 4 Net

28 DISP Character 1 Disposition on release

29 NOTE Character 2 Notes on data sheet

30 PPC Character 1 Feather generations in primary coverts

31 SSC Character 1 Feather generations in secondary coverts

32 PPF Character 1 Feather generations in primaries

33 SSF Character 1 Feather generations in secondaries

34 TT Character 1 Feather generations in tertials

35 RR Character 1 Feather generations in rectrices

36 BPL Character 1 Feather generations in body plumage

37 NF Character 1 Generation indicated by non-feather parts

38 FP Character 1 Feather pull status

39 NOTES Character 30 Notes taken in the field

_______________________________________________________________________

84 - 2021 MAPS Manual

LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. 5

edition.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. 6

edition.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7

edition.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Anders, A.D., D.C. Dearborn, J. Faaborg, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Juvenile survival in

a population of neotropical migrant birds. Conservation Biology 11:698-707.

Baillie, S.R. 1990. Integrated population monitoring of breeding birds in Britain and

Ireland. Ibis 132:151-166.

Baillie, S.R., R.E. Green, M. Boddy, and S.T. Buckland. 1986. An Evaluation of the Constant

Effort Sites Scheme. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK.

Bird Banding Offices. 1991. North American Bird Banding Manual, Vol. II. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, ON.

Brown, L.R. 1991. State of the World, 1992. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.

Burton, K.M., and D.F. DeSante. 2004. Effects of mist-netting frequency on capture rates

at monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations. Pp. 7-11 in Ralph,

C.J., and E.H. Dunn, eds. Monitoring Bird Populations Using Mist Nets. Studies in Avian

Biology 29.

Butcher, G., and S. Droege. 1992. Needs Assessment: Monitoring Neotropical Migratory

Birds. Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Program. 58 pp.

Chesser, R.T., K.J. Burns, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen,

J .V. Remsen, Jr, D.F. Stotz, K. Winker. 2019. Sixtieth Supplement to the American

Ornithological Society’s Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 136(3): 1-23

Clobert, J., J.-D. Lebreton, and D. Allaine. 1987. A general approach to survival rate

estimation by recaptures or resightings of marked birds. Ardea 75:133-142.

DeSante, D.F. 1992. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS): a sharp,

rather than blunt, tool for monitoring and assessing landbird populations. Pp. 511-

521 in McCullough, D.C., and R.H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier

Applied Science, London, UK.

DeSante, D.F. 1995. Suggestions for future directions for studies of marked migratory

landbirds from the perspective of a practitioner in population management and

conservation. Journal Applied Statistics 22:949-965.

DeSante, D.F. 1996. General Evaluation of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) Program in: An Evaluation of the Monitoring Avian Productivity

and Survivorship (MAPS) Program. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes

Station, CA. 128 pp.

DeSante, D.F. 2000. Patterns of productivity and survivorship from the MAPS Program.

Pp. 166-177 in Bonney, R., D.N. Pashley, R.J. Cooper, and L. Niles, eds. Strategies for

Bird Conservation: the Partners in Flight Planning Process. Proceedings of the Third

Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-

16. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station.

2021 MAPS Manual - 85

DeSante, D.F., K.M. Burton, J.F. Saracco, and B.L. Walker. 1995. Productivity indices and

survival rate estimates from MAPS, a continent-wide programme of constant-effort

mist netting in North America. Journal Applied Statistics 22:935-947.

DeSante, D.F., K.M. Burton, and D.R. O’Grady. 1996. The Monitoring Avian and Productivity

and Survivorship (MAPS) Program fourth and fifth annual report (1993 and 1994).

Bird Populations 3:67-120.

DeSante, D.F., and D.R. Kaschube. 2006. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) program 1999, 2000, and 2001 report. Bird Populations 7:23-89.

DeSante, D.F., and D.R. Kaschube. 2007. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) program 2002 and 2003 report. Bird Populations 8:46-115.

DeSante, D.F., and D.R. Kaschube. 2009. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) program 2004, 2005, and 2006 report. Bird Populations 9:86-

169.

DeSante, D. F., D. R. Kaschube, and J. F. Saracco. 2015. Vital Rates of North American

Landbirds. www.VitalRatesOfNorthAmericanLandbirds.org. The Institute for Bird

Populations.

DeSante, D.F., D.R. Kaschube, and T.S. Sillett. 2003a. Evaluation of the first ten years of the

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program in Alaska and

adjacent Canada, Part 1. General results. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point

Reyes Station, CA. 226 pp.

DeSante, D.F., D.R. Kaschube, and T.S. Sillett. 2003b. Evaluation of the first ten years of the

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program in Alaska and

adjacent Canada, Part 2. Statistical power to detect temporal trends and spatial

differences in survival of landbirds. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes

Station, CA. 50 pp.

DeSante, D.F., D.R. Kaschube, J.F. Saracco, and J.E. Hines. 2009. Power to detect

differences and trends in apparent survival rates. Bird Populations 9:29-41.

DeSante, D.F., M.P. Nott, and D.R. O’Grady. 2001. Identifying the proximate demographic

cause(s) of population change by modelling spatial variation in productivity,

survivorship, and population trends. Ardea 89 (special issue): 185-207.

DeSante, D.F., M.P. Nott, and D.R. Kaschube. 2004b. MAPS stations on National Wildlife

Refuges in the USFWS Pacific Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes

Station, CA. 57 pp.

DeSante, D.F., M.P. Nott, and D.R. Kaschube. 2005. Monitoring, modeling, and

management: Why base avian management on vital rates and how should it be done?

Pp. 795-804 in Ralph, C.J., and T.D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation Implementation and

Integration in the Americas. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-191.

DeSante, D.F., and D.R. O’Grady. 2000. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

(MAPS) Program 1997 and 1998 report. Bird Populations 5: 49-101.

DeSante, D.F., D.R. O’Grady, K.M. Burton, P. Velez, D. Froehlich, E.E. Feuss, H. Smith, and

E.D. Ruhlen. 1998. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)

Program Sixth and Seventh Annual Report (1995 and 1996). Bird Populations 4:69-

122.

86 - 2021 MAPS Manual

DeSante, D.F., D.R. O’Grady, and P. Pyle. 1999. Measures of productivity and survival

derived from standardized mist-netting are consistent with observed population

trends. Bird Study 46(suppl):S178-188.

DeSante, D., and P. Pyle. 1986. Distributional Checklist of North American Birds. Volume 1:

United States and Canada. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, CA.

DeSante, D.F., and D.K. Rosenberg. 1998. What do we need to monitor in order to manage

landbirds? Pp. 93-106 in Marzluff, J.M., and R. Sallabanks, eds. Avian Conservation:

Research and Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.

DeSante, D.F., and J.F. Saracco. 2009. Power of the MAPS program to detect differences

and trends in survival and a vision for program growth. Bird Populations 9:42-75.

DeSante, D.F., J.F. Saracco, D.R. O’Grady, K.M. Burton, and B.L. Walker. 2004a.

Methodological considerations of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

(MAPS) program. Pp. 28-45 in Ralph, C.J., and E.H. Dunn, eds. Monitoring Bird

Populations Using Mist Nets. Studies in Avian Biology 29.

DeSante, D.F., J.F. Saracco, P. Pyle, D.R. Kaschube, and M.K. Chambers. 2008. Integrating

the MAPS program into Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast (U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Region 5). The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

99 pp.

DeSante, D.F., O.E. Williams, and K.M. Burton. 1993. The Monitoring Avian Productivity

and Survivorship (MAPS) Program: overview and progress. Pp. 208-222 in Finch,

D.M., and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229.

Froehlich, D. 2003. Ageing North American Landbirds by Molt Limits and Plumage Criteria:

a Photographic Companion to the Identification Guide to North American Birds, Part I.

Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, CA. 51 pp

Froehlich, D., N. Michel, D.F. DeSante, and P. Velez. 2006. MAPSPROG Version 4.1. User’s

Guide and Manual. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 163 pp

Geissler, P. 1997. Review of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)

Program in: An Evaluation of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

(MAPS) Program. The Institute for Bird Populations, Pt Reyes Sta, CA.

George, T.L., R.J. Harrigan, J.A. LaManna, D.F. DeSante, J.F. Saracco, and T.B. Smith.

2015. Persistent impacts of West Nile virus on North American bird populations.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(46):14290–14294.

Glass, A. J., A.J. Caven, D. Kim, M.O. Sutton, and N. Arcilla. 2020. Climate change and

land management implications for a declining Neotropical migratory songbird

breeding in the North American Great Plains. Avian Conservation and Ecology 15(1):4.

Hines, J.E., W.L. Kendall, and J.D. Nichols. 2003. On the use of the robust design with

transient capture-recapture models. Auk 120:1151-1158.

Holmes, R.T., and T.W. Sherry. 1988. Assessing population trends of New Hampshire

forest birds: local vs. regional trends. Auk 105:756-768.

Howell, S.N.G., C. Corbin, P. Pyle, and D.I. Rogers. 2003. The first basic problem: a review

of molt and plumage homologies. Condor 105:635-653.

Hutto, R.L. 1988. Is tropical deforestation responsible for the reported decline in

neotropical migrant populations? American Birds 42:375-379.

2021 MAPS Manual - 87

Johnson, E.I., J.D. Wolfe, T.B. Ryder, and P. Pyle. 2011. Modifications to a molt-based

ageing system proposed by Wolfe et al. (2010). Journal of Field Ornithology 82:422-

424.

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology

15:247-257.

Lebreton, J.-D, K.P. Burnham, J. Clobert, and D.R. Anderson. 1992. Modeling survival and

testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case

studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62:67-118.

Morton, E.S., and R. Greenberg. 1989. The outlook for migratory songbirds: "future shock"

for birders. American Birds 43:178-183.

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 3

edition.

National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

Ng, A.M.B., M. Pontius, S.L. De Ruiter, and D.S. Proppe. 2020. Noise, avian abundance, and

productivity at banding stations across the Continental United States. Avian

Conservation and Ecology 15(2):4.

Nott, M.P. 2000. Identifying management actions on DoD installations to reverse declines

in Neotropical birds. The Institute for Bird Populations, Pt. Reyes Sta., CA. 18 pp.

Nott, M.P., and D.F. DeSante. 2002. Demographic monitoring and the identification of

transients in mark-recapture models. Pp. 727-736 in J.M. Scott, P.J. Heglund, M.L.

Morrison, et al., (eds.), Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy.

Island Press, New York

Nott, M.P., D.F. DeSante, R.B. Siegel, and P. Pyle. 2002. Influences of the El Niño/Southern

Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation on avian productivity in forests of the

Pacific Northwest of North America. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:333-342.

Nott, M.P., D.F. DeSante, and N. Michel. 2003a. Management Strategies for Reversing

Declines in Landbirds of Conservation Concern: a Landscape-Scale Analysis of MAPS

Data. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA 357 pp.

Nott, M.P., D.F. DeSante, and N. Michel. 2003b. Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) Habitat Structure Assessment (HSA) Protocol. The Institute for

Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 42 pp.

Nott, M.P., D.F. DeSante, P. Pyle, and N. Michel. 2005. Managing Landbird Populations in

Forests of the Pacific Northwest: Formulating Population Management Guidelines

from Landscape-scale Ecological Analyses of MAPS Data from Avian Communities on

Seven National Forests in the Pacific Northwest. The Institute for Bird Populations,

Point Reyes Station, CA 163 pp. + appendices.

Peach, W.J., S.R. Baillie, and D.E. Balmer. 1998. Long-term changes in the abundance of

passerines in Britain and Ireland as measured by constant effort mist-netting. Bird

Study 45:257-275.

Peach, W., S. Baillie, and L. Underhill. 1991.Survival of British Sedge Warblers

Acrocephalus schoenobaenus in relation to west African rainfall. Ibis 133:300-305.

Peach, W.J., S.T. Buckland, and S.R. Baillie. 1990. Estimating survival rates using mark-

recapture data from multiple ringing sites. The Ring 13:87-102.

Peach, W.J., S.T. Buckland, and S.R. Baillie. 1996. The use of constant effort mist-netting

to measure between-year changes in the abundance and productivity of common

passerines. Bird Study 43:142-156.

88 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer, and C.S. Robbins. 1995. Population trends from the North

American Breeding Bird Survey. Pp. 3-39 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (eds.), Ecology

and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, New York,

NY.

Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson Field Guide: Eastern Birds. 4

edition. Houghton Mifflin

Comp., Boston, MA.

Peterson, R.T. 1990. Peterson Field Guide: Western Birds. 3

edition. Houghton Mifflin

Comp., Boston, MA.

Pollock, K.H., J.-D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J.E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for

capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107.

Pradel, R. 1996. Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and

population growth rate. Biometrics 52:703-709.

Pradel, R., J.E. Hines, J.-D. Lebreton, and J.D. Nichols. 1997. Capture-recapture survival

models taking account of transients. Biometrics 53:60-72.

Pyle, P. 1997. Identification Guide to North American Birds, Part 1. Slate Creek Press,

Bolinas, CA.

Pyle, P. 2004. New terminology will help you understand molt. MAPS Chat 7:2,8.

Pyle, P., and D.F. DeSante. 2003. Four-letter and six-letter alpha codes for birds recorded

from the American Ornithologist’s Union check-list area. North American Bird Bander

28:64-79.

Pyle, P., and D.F. DeSante. 2005. Updates to four-letter and six-letter alpha codes based

on Revisions by the American Ornithologists' Union. North American Bird Bander

30:70-72.

Pyle, P., and D.F. DeSante. 2006. Updates to four-letter and six-letter alpha codes based

on Revisions by the American Ornithologists' Union. North American Bird Bander

31:193-195.

Pyle, P., D.F. DeSante, M.P. Nott, and D.R. Kaschube. 2005. The MAPS program in the

Pacific Northwest: Current status and future directions. The Institute for Bird

Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 106 pp.

Pyle P, K.R. Foster, G.M Godwin, D.R. Kaschube, and J.F. Saracco. 2020. Yearling

proportion correlates with habitat structure in a boreal forest landbird community.

PeerJ 8:e8898

Pyle, P., J.F. Saracco, and D.F. DeSante. 2018. Evidence of widespread movements from

breeding to molting grounds by North American landbirds. The Auk: Ornithological

Advances 135:506-520.

Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field

Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-

144.

Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R.S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population declines in

North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA)

86:7658-7662.

Robinson, R.A., R. Julliard, and J.F. Saracco. 2009. Constant effort: studying avian

population processes using standardised ringing. Ringing & Migration 24:199-204.

Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2015. The Birds of North America Online:

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

2021 MAPS Manual - 89

Rosenberg, D.K., D.F. DeSante, K.S. McKelvey, and J.E. Hines. 1999. Monitoring survival

rates of Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus at multiple spatial scales. Bird Study

46(suppl): S198-208.

Ruegg, K., E. Anderson, K. Paxton, V. Apkenas, S. Lao, R.B. Siegel, D.F. DeSante, F. Moore,

and T. Smith. 2014. Mapping migration in a songbird using high-resolution genetic

markers. Molecular Ecology 23:5726–5739.

Ruegg, K.C., R.J. Harrigan, J.F. Saracco, T.B. Smith, and C.M. Taylor. 2020. A genoscape‐

network model for conservation prioritization in a migratory bird. Conservation

Biology 34 (6): 1482-1491.

Rushing, C.S., T.B. Ryder, A.L. Scarpignato, J.F. Saracco, and P.P. Marra. 2016. Using

demographic attributes from long-term monitoring data to delineate population

structure. The Journal of Applied Ecology. Early View published online at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12579/abstract.

Saracco, J. 2004. Changes in the use of the “adults only” (now called “molt limits and

plumage” fields: a more intuitive and informative approach to ageing birds. MAPS

Chat 7:3-5.

Saracco, J.F., and D.F. DeSante. 2008. Identifying proximate causes of population trends in

migratory birds. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 44 pp.

Saracco, J.F., and M. Rubenstein. 2020. Integrating broad-scale data to assess

demographic and climatic contributions to population change in a declining songbird.

Ecology and Evolution 2020;10:1804-1816.

Saracco, J.F., D.F. DeSante, D.R. Kaschube, J.E. Hines, M.P. Nott, and R.B. Siegel. 2006.

An analysis of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program and

a vision for its integration into North American Coordinated Bird Monitoring. The

Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 87 pp.

Saracco, J.F., D.F. DeSante, and D.R. Kaschube. 2008. Assessing landbird monitoring

programs and demographic causes of population trends. Journal of Wildlife

Management 72:1665-1673.

Saracco, J.F., D.F. DeSante, M.P. Nott, W.M. Hochachka, S Kelling, and D. Fink. 2009a.

Integrated bird monitoring and the Avian Knowledge Network: Using multiple data

resources to understand spatio-temporal variation in demographic processes and

abundance. Pp. 659-661 in Rich, T.D., C. Arizmendi, D.W. Demarest, and C. Thompson

(eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to

Tropics. 13-16 February 2008. McAllen, Texas. Partners in Flight.

Saracco, J.F., D.F. DeSante, M.P. Nott, and D.R. Kaschube. 2009b. Using MAPS and MoSI

to monitor landbirds and inform conservation. Pp. 651-658 in Rich, T.D., C. Arizmendi,

D.W. Demarest, and C. Thompson (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Partners

in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 13-16 February 2008. McAllen, Texas.

Partners in Flight.

Saracco, J.F., J.A. Royle, D.F. DeSante, and B. Gardner. 2010. Modeling spatial variation in

avian survival and residency probabilities. Ecology 91(7):1885-1891.

Saracco, J.F., J.A. Royle, D.F. DeSante, and B. Gardner. 2012. Spatial modeling of survival

and residency and application to the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

program. Journal of Ornithology 152 (Supplement 2):S469-S476

90 - 2021 MAPS Manual

Saracco, J.F., R.B. Siegel, L. Helton, S. Stock, and D. DeSante. 2019. Phenology and

productivity in a montane bird assemblage: trends and responses to elevation and

climate variation. Global Change Biology 2019:25;985-086.

Sibley, D.A 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America. Alfred A. Knopf,

New York.

Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A.

Knopf, New York.

Temple, S.A., and J.A. Wiens. 1989. Bird populations and environmental changes: can

birds be bio-indicators? American Birds 43:260-270.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Essays on the Biology and Conservation

of Birds that Migrate to the American Tropics. Princeton University Press, Princeton,

NJ.

Vega Rivera, J.H., J.H. Rappole, W.J. McShea, and C.A. Haas. 1998. Wood Thrush

postfledging movements and habitat use in northern Virginia. Condor 100:69-78.

Wolfe, J.D., T.B. Ryder, and P. Pyle. 2010. Using molt cycles to categorize the age of

tropical birds: an integrative new system. Journal of Field Ornithology 81:186-194.

White, G.C. 1983. Numerical estimation of survival rates from band-recovery and

biotelemetry data. J. Wildlife Management 47:716-728.

White, G.C., and K.P. Burnham. 1999. Program Mark: survival estimation from populations

of marked animals. Bird Study 46(suppl.):120-138.

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds.

Ecology 66:1211-1212.

Yunick, R.P. 1979. Variation in skull pneumatization patterns of certain passerines. North

American Bird Bander 4:145-147.