A review of the status and distribution of Northern Goshawks in New England

2005·4.2 MB·English

by  S Destefano

/. RaptorRes. 39(3):342-350
© 2005 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
A REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF NORTHERN
GOSHAWKS NEW ENGLAND
IN
Stephen DeStefano^
U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts CooperativeFish and Wildlife Research Unit,
MA
Holdsworth Natural Resources Center, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, 01003 U.S.A.
—
Abstract. The Northern Goshawk {Accipiter gentilis) is a resident breeder throughout much of the
forested landscape of New England and a winter resident in most of New England, except possibly for
extreme northern portions. Historically, goshawk numbers and distribution presumably declined as
agriculture and logging grew to dominate the region in the 19* century when large parts of New
England were cleared upwards of 75% of the forest cover. Goshawks likely responded to reforestation
during the middle and latter decades of the 20* century. However, most biologists agree that although
goshawk numbers may be stable or perhaps increasing slightly today, their true status and distribution
in this six-state region is largely unknown. Goshawks in New England nest in mature regrown coniferous,
deciduous, and mixed forest. From a landscape perspective, conservation, maintenance, and enhance-
ment of mature forest, as well as early successional-stage cover, are both necessary for this species in
New England. Restoration and management of these cover types would benefit not only goshawks and
their prey, but also a significant portion of the region’s biodiversity. Because of the extensive and inten-
sive relationships humans have had with the New England landscape over the past three centuries, the
region would make a valuable subject area for long-term monitoring and research on a wide-ranging
top-level predator such as the goshawk.
Key Words: Northern Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis; Connecticut, distribution; Maine; Massachusetts; New
Hampshire, New England; northeastern U.S.; Rhode Island; Vermont, status.
UNA REVISION SOBRE EL ESTADO Y LA DISTRIBUCION DE ACCIPITER GENTILIS EN NUEVA
INGLATERRA
—
Resumen. Accipiter gentilis es un ave residente que nidifica a lo largo de la mayor parte de los bosques
de la region de Nueva Inglaterra, y un residente invernal en casi toda Nueva Inglaterra con excepcion
posiblemente de las porciones mas extremas del norte. Historicamente, los numeros y la distribucion
de A. gentilis presumiblemente disminuyeron a medida que la agricultura y la tala aumentaron hasta
dominar la region durante el siglo XIX, cuando grandes partes de Nueva Inglaterra fueron deforestadas,
transformandose mas del 75% de la cobertura del bosque. Luego A. gentilis probablemente respondio
a la reforestacion a partir de mediados del siglo XX. Sin embrago, la mayoria de los biologos coinciden
con que, aunque los numeros de A. gentilis pueden permanecer estables o tal vez haber incrementando
levemente en la actualidad, su verdadero estatus y distribucion son basicamente desconocidos en esta
region que comprende seis estados. A. gentilis nidifica en Nueva Inglaterra en bosques regenerados
maduros de coniferas, en bosques deciduos y en bosques mixtos. Desde una perspectiva del pais^e, la
conservacion, mantenimiento y mejoramiento del bosque maduro y de las etapas sucesionales tempran-
as, son una preocupacion en Nueva Inglaterra. La restauracion y el manejo de estos tipos de cobertura
beneficiarian no solo a A. gentilis y a sus presas, sino tambien a una porcion significativa de la biodiv-
ersidad de la region. Debido a las relaciones extensas e intensas que los humanos han tenido con el
paisaje de Nueva Inglaterra a lo largo de los ultimos tres siglos, la region seria un area piloto interesante
y valiosa para el monitoreo y la investigacion a largo plazo de un depredador tope con un area de
accion amplia como A. gentilis.
[Traduccion del equipo editorial]
^ Email address: [email protected]
342
,
September 2005 Conservation 343
Much attention has focused on the Northern StudyArea
Goshawk {Accipiter gentilis) in the western United I restricted my review of the status and distribution of
States west of the 100* meridian (Kennedy 1997, Northern Goshawks in the Northeast to New England.
The six New England states (Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Crocker-Bedford 1998, DeStefano 1998, Andersen
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine)
et al. 2003). However, the species is holarctic in cover ca. 163 200 km^ and form an identifiable political
distribution and is found in boreal and northern and regional entity. This review could have also included
temperate forests in the northern hemisphere of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, NewJersey, and other
states to the south, but New England forms a convenient
North America and Eurasia (Squires and Reynolds
and manageable region for addressing questions ofstatus
1997). In the northeastern U.S., the goshawk is and distribution. More importantly, there are more ex-
found regularly throughout this region, including tensive long-term records and documentation ofland-use
in all six New England states and as far south as change for New England than any other region of the
country (Cogbill et al. 2002, Foster 2002), in addition to
Maryland and West Virginia (Squires and Reynolds
well-studied, species-habitat relationships (DeGraaf and
1997). Yamasaki 2001). Nonetheless, many other parts of the
Much of the interest and concern for goshawks Northeast share similar land-use histories with New En-
in the western U.S. is related to forest management gland, and at least some of the insights and speculation
provided here regarding the status and distribution of
practices, in particular the cutting of large trees Northern Goshawks in New England will be similar for
and conversion of the forested landscape from late other northeastern states.
to early-seral-stage forest (DeStefano 1998). How- New England is diverse in vegetation, topography, cli-
ever, in the eastern U.S., woody vegetation and re- mate, and other ecological factors, but in general is dom-
inated by deciduous, mixed deciduous-coniferous, and
growth forest has increased to such an extent that coniferous forest as one moves from south to north
biologists are now concerned with the lack ofearly- (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Summers are warm and
seral-stage habitats, such as grasslands and shrub- humid; winters are usually cold and snowy. Precipitation
in the form ofrain and snow is highlyvariable and based
lands, and the loss of some forest types such as on many factors, such as latitude, elevation, and prox-
aspen {Populus spp.) and the species they support- imity to the coast, but generally ranges from 90-140 cm
ed (Askins 2001, Thompson and DeGraaf 2001). annually. Numerous lakes, ponds, rivers, and wetlands
The northeastern U.S., and New England in par- cover the region. Major mountain ranges include the
Berkshire Mountains, which extend from western Con-
ticular, have a long history of human occupation necticut through Massachusetts, the Taconic Mountains
and land-use change, even before European settle- of Massachusetts, Green Mountains of Vermont, and
ment (Cronin 1983). In the 18* and 19* centuries, White Mountains and Mahoosics of New Hampshire and
Maine. The entire region was glaciated, and erosion has
clearing for agriculture and timber altered the en-
been a major influence on the landforms present today.
tire region (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Much of Six forest regions have been identified in New En-
New England is reforested today, and it is unknown gland. Major tree species that characterize some of these
but unlikely that these second- or multiple-growth regions include pitch pine {Pinus rigida), oaks {Quercus
— spp.), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), eastern white
forests are similar and certainly are not identi-
— pine {Pinus strobus) red spruce {Picea rubens) andbalsam
, ,
cal to the original forests of 300-350 yr ago (Cog- fir {Abies balsamea). These forest regions, in a general
bill et al. 2002). south to north distribution, are pitch pine-oak (on Cape
The primary question in the eastern U.S., one God), central hardwoods-hemlock-white pine, transition
hardwoods-white pine, northern hardwoods, northern
that has implications for goshawk management in hardwoods-spruce, and spruce-fir (DeGraafandYamasaki
the western U.S., is what is the status and distri- 2001). American beech {Fagus grandifolia) birches {Bet-
bution of Northern Goshawks in the greatly trans- ula spp.), sugar maple {Acer saccharum) and several other
maples, hickories {Carya spp.), ashes {Fraxinus spp.),
formed landscapes of the Northeast? The objec-
cherries {Prunus spp.), and aspens are other major tree
tives of this paper are to examine that question by species. Disturbance to forest growth and structure is
reviewing recent accounts and expert opinion on common in New England; DeGraafand Yamasaki (2001)
the status of Northern Goshawks, describe the dis- identify and discuss five major types of disturbances that
have altered New England’s forest, including windthrow,
tribution ofgoshawks in the New England states in fire, exotic pests and pathogens, agriculture, and logging.
light of historical changes and current conditions, Much of southern New England is highly urbanized,
and attempt to assess the status of the species in with some of the highest densities ofpeople in the coun-
this region. I then make suggestions for potential rtruyr.alH.owMeovsetr,ofsubtshteanftoiraelstpolratnidons(soofmtehe12r0eg0i0o0n akrme^stoilrl
long-term, multi-state research over large land- >70%) is privately owned by >760000 different owners
scapes in New England. and divided into small parcels and woodlots of nonin-
.
344 DeStefano VoL. 39, No. 3
dustrial-private forest (commonly abbreviated as NIPF land in central and southern New England was in
lands), but there are large privately owned commercial
pasture and crops by the first half of the 1800s
timberlands in the north, particularly in Maine (Birch
1996). Federal land is much less common in the East (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Many of the largest
than the West, but there are two national forests in the trees, such as eastern white pines, were cut to pro-
region: the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont vide masts for ships, first for the British navy before
and the White Mountain National Forest in New Hamp- the Revolutionary War and then for the U.S. navy
shire and Maine.
after the war (Walker 1999). Around 1910, the last
Methods major logging occurred when primarily white
I reviewed written accounts, both recent and historical, pines were harvested. These sites grew into hard-
of the Northern Goshawk and related land-use changes woods and supported large populations of Ruffed
in New England. I also summarized information reported Grouse {Bonasa umbellus) during the 1920s and
from breeding bird atlases, which have been published 1930s (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Today, about
for all six states. I examined long-term trends in numbers 65% of southern New England and >90% of
for both breeding and wintering goshawks by querying
web databases for the North American Breeding Bird northern New England are forested (DeGraaf and
Survey (BBS; http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/) and Yamasaki 2001). Each year the age and extent of
the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Counts forest in southern and central New England in-
(CBC; http://audubon2.org/birds/cbc/hr/graph.html)
creases (Brooks and Birch 1988, DeGraaf and Ya-
Finally, I queried local experts in each state to gather
their knowledge on the status and distribution of gos- masaki 2001).
hawks. I defined an expert as anyone currently working Today, the evolution of the New England land-
as a professional biologist with a state or federal agency scape is marked at least partially by what is no lon-
or a recognized non-governmental organization, who
ger there. Remnants of what may be called old-
had a focus on raptors, threatened or endangered spe-
cies, or forest wildlife. I asked a series of eight questions, growth forest make up <1% of the forests of New
which addressed issues related to status, distribution, England (Davis 1996, Cogbill et al. 2002). Thus,
population trends, habitat use, relationship to mature the woodlands of the Northeast could be described
forest and young, early-successional forest, and prey.
as multiply-regrown forests of medium-sized and
Questions were sent to biologists in each state and at the
Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forests. medium- to mature-age (40-100 yr) trees. Old-
growth or virgin forest remnants remain in small
RESUI.TS and scattered amounts, but are essentially ecolog-
Historical and Recent Accounts of New England ically extinct, while open grasslands, shrubby hab-
Forests. Before European settlement, the North- itats, or young invasive forest types have given way
east was probably a mix of forested and open hab- to altered disturbance regimes and woody plant
A
itats. Native prairie and forests cleared by Native succession (Lorimer 2001). dominant canopy
American activities were common in southern New and major mast-producing tree species, the Amer-
England, while beaver Castorcanadensis) meadows, ican chestnut (Castanea dentata), was eliminated as
(
periodic fires, and hurricanes created a shifting a canopy tree by the chestnut blight (Cryphonectna
mosaic of forest and open habitats throughout the parasitica), introduced from Europe in the early
region (Cronin 1983, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001, 1900s (Paillet 2002). American chestnuts still exist
Lorimer 2001, Parshall and Foster 2002). Interior in the woodlands of New England and elsewhere,
and northern regions were more heavily forested but never achieve maturity and survive today only
than coastal sections or lands along major rivers in the form of sprouts originating from trees or
(DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). seedlings that were established before the arrival
The history of New England since the time of of the blight (Paillet 2002). The hemlock woolly
European settlement embodies major and constant adelgid {Adelges tsugae), an aphid-like insect from
anthropogenic change (Hall et al. 2002) Foster et Japan, has already caused the loss oflarge numbers
.
al. (2002) characterized these changes to the New of eastern hemlock trees in southern New Eng-
England landscape as a continual transformation land, and is migrating north, threatening the ex-
involving deforestation, intensive agriculture, farm istence of this long-lived, shade tolerant species
abandonment, reforestation, and human popula- (Orwig et al. 2002) Changes due to direct mortal-
.
tion increase. Land was first cleared slowly for set- ity as well as increased logging, which is occurring
tlements and agriculture until the 1750s, after at a greater rate because of the threat of the loss
which the pace accelerated until 75% of the arable of trees, have led to thinning canopies (Kizlinski et
, .
September 2005 Conservation 345
al. 2002) and changes in avian communities (Ting- 1883-1935 (Wetherbee 1945:117-18). In 1945,
ley et al. 2002). Wetherbee (1945:23) reported that the “eastern”
Many large mammals, such as elk {Cervus ela- goshawk was among several species of birds that
phus) and caribou {Rangifer tarandus), have been have “nested in the past but have doubtful nesting
extirpated, as have some major predators, such as status at present.”
wolves {Canis lupus) and mountain lions {Puma Since about 1955, however, there is some evi-
concolor, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Wolves were dence that both numbers of nesting pairs and the
extirpated around 1900, and soon afterwards coy- range ofbreeding goshawks have increased steadily
otes {Canis latrans) began colonizing the region in New England (DeGraafand Yamasaki 2001) For
.
from the Midwest (Parker 1995). Passenger Pi- example, only three nesting records existed in Ver-
geons {Ectopistes migratorius) whose numbers quite mont before 1933, but now goshawks nest through-
possibly ranged in the billions and were likely a out northern New England (Laughlin and Kibbe
major prey item for goshawks and other raptors, 1985, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). DeGraaf and
went extinct at the turn of the 19* century (Block- Yamasaki (2001) attribute range expansion and an
stein 2002) By shear numbers alone, their impact increase in population size to the regrowth ofNew
.
was a major driving force on the characteristics of England forests.
eastern forests (Ellsworth and McComb 2003) Recent Accounts for the Northern Goshawk.
During this recent history, other wildlife species DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) list the Northern
have either increased their range or have become Goshawk as uncommon to rare, but increasing, in
more common, such as moose {Alces alces) beaver, New England. They state that goshawks breed
,
coyote, fisher {Maries pennanti), Wild Turkey {Me- throughout the New England states and winter
leagris gallopavo), Mourning Dove {Zenaida ma- throughout the region, except for northernmost
crouro), and others (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001: Maine. The Northern Goshawk was one of 41
13). breeding bird species that DeGraaf and Yamasaki
Historical Accounts for the Northern Goshawk. (2001) listed as having “increased significantly in
In New England, nesting habitat of Northern Gos- abundance” in Massachusetts (Veit and Petersen
hawks decreased as forests were cleared for settle- 1993).
ment and agriculture (Bent 1937, DeGraaf and Ya- State Accounts. The following accounts for each
masaki 2001). This was an obvious change in of the six New England states were excerpted from
habitat for the goshawk, but equally important may the atlas ofbreeding birds for each state and other
have been the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon, sources as cited.
which was likely important prey for goshawks (Bent Connecticut. Bevier (1994) described the goshawk
1937). Thus, the Northern Goshawk may have as an uncommon permanent resident and mi-
been a rare nesting species in New England at the grant. Nesting concentrated in higher elevations of
turn of the 19* to the 20* century (Bevier 1994). western Connecticut, where pairs usually occupy a
It was called a casual species in summer (Forbush territory throughout the year. They exhibit “flexi-
1925-29), very rare (Bagg and Eliot 1937), and a ble habitat selection,” nesting in tracts of mixed
rare and irregular winter resident (Sage et al. northern hardwoods and conifers, especially east-
1913). ern hemlock and white pine, pure stands of ma-
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the goshawk ture white or red pine {Pinus resinosa) within more
was a rare summer resident in northern New extensive tracts of deciduous woods, wetlands, and
Hampshire (Allen 1903, Hoffman 1904, Foss 1994) second-growth, deciduous stands. Nesting occurs
and was seen in southern New Hampshire primar- on hillsides, frequently near wetlands and away
ily as a winter visitor (Dearborn 1903, Foss 1994). from human disturbance. Prey brought to nests
The discovery (or rediscovery) of the first goshawk was mostly squirrels and chipmunks, grouse, song-
nest in Massachusetts has been attributed to two birds, and waterfowl.
officials of the Harvard Forest in Petersham, cen- Rhode Island. Enser (1992) reported that histor-
tral Massachusetts, in 1922-23 (Wetherbee 1945). ical nesting was unknown. Northern Goshawks may
In some winters, goshawks were reported to come now be the most common nesting Accipiter in
out of the north in great numbers to “wreak havoc Rhode Island, but there are still very few known
with the grouse of the county” (Wetherbee 1945: nests (ca. eight confirmed or possible occurrences
38). Over 20 skins were reported collected from in the early 1990s). This species became reestab-
.
346 DeStefano VoL. 39, No. 3
lished in the mid-1950s. They usually breed in iso-
lated areas ofconiferous forest, particularlymature
stands of hemlock and white pine and also decid-
uous woodlots.
Massachusetts. Veit and Petersen (1993) listed the
goshawk as one of 41 breeding bird species whose
numbers have increased significantly since the
1950s, based on Griscom and Snyder’s (1955) ac-
counts. The current status is given as an uncom-
mon resident and migrant on the mainland and a
rare migrant on the islands ofNantucket and Mar-
tha’s Vineyard. In 1995, nesting was restricted to
western Massachusetts, but now occurs regularly Fig. 1. During the Christmas Bird Count in New Eng-
throughout the state, except for Cape Cod and the land from 1959-60 to 2002-03, counts ofNorthern Gos-
Islands. Goshawk numbers fluctuate annually, but hawks have shown a long-term increasing trend. Data
have been increasing steadily since the mid-1950s, compiled from National Audubon Society, Inc. web site
Christmas Bird Count home page (http://www.
both during the breeding season and in winter.
audubon.org/bird/cbc/) for Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Vermont. Laughlin and Kibbe (1985) reported
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
that goshawks were found almost statewide, but
were largely confined to areas with medium to
high relief (e.g., in the Champlain Lowlands along vidual birds is <1 per route (Sauer et al. 2003). In
Lake Champlain). All but one record were from spite of extremely low densities, long-term CBC
the hilly eastern and southern portions of that re- data show a concurrent long-term increase in sight-
gion. ings of goshawks, but a slight decrease in number
New Hampshire. Foss (1994) described the gos- of birds observed per unit effort (Fig. 1)
hawk as much more common in southern New Expert Opinions. Several biologists responded
Hampshire in recent decades, while the Cooper’s to my questions about goshawks in their state. Not
(Accipiter cooperii) and Sharp-shinned {A. striatus) unexpectedly, the distribution of Northern Gos-
hawks seem to have made only modest recoveries hawks in most New England states is somewhat eas-
since the use of DDT was banned in the early ier to determine, and thus better known, than pop-
1970s. The goshawk breeds throughout the state, ulation status or trends. Breeding bird surveys
typically in higher elevations, and often nests in probably best indicate the distribution of nesting
deciduous trees, especially white birch {Betula pa- pairs. In general, goshawks can be found in forest-
pyrifera) red maple {Acer rubrum) and black birch ed areas throughout New England, although den-
, ,
{B. lenta), but occasionally in white pine. Prey sities could be expected to vary among regions (C.
items include grouse, crows, waterfowl, small birds, Gaughan, S. Melvin, S. Parren, and T. Hodgman
hares, squirrels, and chipmunks. pers. comm.). In short, most biologists described
Maine. Adamus (1987) reported that the gos- the goshawk as uncommon but present, and given
hawk was somewhat common in the central and naturally low densities of this species, well distrib-
southern parts of the state, but less so further uted in forested habitat.
north. Confirmed nesting records exist for coastal State biologists recognize that information on
regions and southern and central Maine. Probable population trends is lacking. Some have stated
breeding records exist throughout Maine, includ- that, although it is commonly reported that gos-
ing the north-central region and along the Cana- hawk numbers may be increasing because ofwide-
dian border. Goshawks are generally absent in spread reforestation, there are no definitive data
northern Maine during winter (DeCraaf and Ya- to support this proposal. Goshawk numbers may
masaki 2001). have decreased in northern Maine during the
Breeding Bird Surveys and Christmas Bird 1960s through 1980s because ofwidespread spruce
Counts. Both breeding (from BBS data) andwinter budworm Choristoneura fumiferana) infestations
(
(from CBC data) distribution maps show the gos- and subsequent increased tree mortality and sal-
hawk present throughout all of New England, but vage harvests; however, numbers there may have
in both cases the number of observations of indi- stabilized in the last decade (T. Hodgman pers.
September 2005 Conservation 347
comm.). It appears that goshawks have expanded species did not exhibit major long-term trends.
south in New Hampshire, suggesting that numbers Likewise, DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) identified
have increased in the southern part of the state in three major trends in New England’s wildlife in the
recent years (C. Gaughan pers. comm.). last several decades: (1) forest species are increas-
Biologists from the Green and White Mountain ing, (2) grassland and shrubland species are de-
National Forests provided responses similar to clining, and (3) many southern birds are spreading
those of state biologists regarding the status and northward into the region. In addition, a few spe-
distribution of Northern Goshawks on their areas cies like Common Ravens (Corvus corax) and
(C. Grove and M. Yamasaki pers. comm.). Gos- moose have extended their range southward.
hawks are distributed throughout most or all of At least some of these statements apply directly
both Vermont’s Green Mountain and New Hamp- or indirectly to the Northern Goshawk in New En-
shire and Maine’s White Mountain National For- gland. The goshawk was apparently one of those
ests, certainly as breeders and probably as winter forest species that has increased in numbers in the
residents, although some birds may be winter mi- last half century. This was probable given that at
grants from the north. Goshawks are not common, least three quarters of New England’s forests were
but neither are they considered rare; the term “un- cleared for agriculture and high-graded for timber.
common breeder’’ might best describe their status The number and distribution of goshawks could
on national forest lands within New England. For- have been expected to decline significantly with
est biologists believe that goshawk numbers are the amount of forest clearing that occurred in the
probably stable at some undetermined level, and 18* and 19* centuries. With reforestation occur-
may even be increasing as suggested by state breed- ring during the middle decades ofthe 20* century,
ing bird atlas accounts, but again caution that data the distribution and number of goshawks likely in-
are lacking and opinions on population trends are creased. This presumed long-term decline followed
speculative. On both the Green and White Moun- by an increase in numbers of goshawks must be
tain National Forests, goshawks nest in mature viewed in the proper temporal scale: in decades, if
stands ofwhite pine or mixed spruce-fir and hard- not centuries, of change. More difficult to deci-
woods. Given the land-use history ofNew England, pher is whether or not goshawk distribution and
many of these stands are essentially regrown ma- numbers are increasing today. Some evidence in-
ture forest of 80-100 yr. Often there are forest dicates that this is the case, but empirical data are
openings, such as roads, trails, and upland open- extremely limited to nonexistent. Thus, it is diffi-
ings nearby, but usually nests are away from high cult to speculate on recent (say, the last 20-30 yr)
levels of human activity. Some additional general- population trends without more definitive data.
izations ofnest sites include gentler slopes at lower However, long-term efforts, such as the Christmas
elevations (e.g., below 450 m). The Northern Gos- Bird Count, indicated a possible increase, or at
hawk was listed as a Regional Forester Sensitive least stabilization, of goshawk numbers in the re-
Species in 2003 on some national forests in the gion (Fig. 1).
northern portions of the U.S. Forest Service’s Re- The status of Northern Goshawks is certainly
gion 9, but not on either the Green or White tied to the distribution and condition of mature
Mountain National Forest (M. Yamasaki pers. forest. However, the recent decline of some early-
comm.). successional-stage species, such as grouse and lago-
morphs (Rusch et al. 2000, Litvaitis 2001, Fuller
Discussion and DeStefano 2003) may influence goshawk dis-
,
Foster et al. (2002) characterized six major tra- tribution and reproduction (Doyle and Smith
jectories of change in the long-term dynamics of 1994) Historically, the extirpation ofsome species,
.
wildlife populations in the northeast; (1) many particularly the Passenger Pigeon, have likely al-
large mammals and birds that declined historically tered the suite of available prey species for gos-
have increased recently, (2) open-land specieswent hawks, while the expansion of some species, such
from low to high abundance wdth land clearing, as some passerines, in New England may provide
but are in decline today, (3) some species were ex- new prey. Regardless, ubiquitous and intensive an-
tirpated, (4) some species have expanded their thropogenic change has characterized, and will
ranges into the northeast, (5) introduced non-na- continue to influence, the region’s landscape, veg-
tives have proliferated, and (6) some persistent etation, and wildlife. DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001:
, ,
348 DeStefano VoL. 39, No. 3
3) summarized this by stating, “Most species have have important and related consequences for sev-
likely had very different distributions through eral wildlife species, including goshawks.
time. In 50 or 100 years, both the species present
New England: A “Natural Experiment”
and their distributions will be different.” This is
likely the case for the Northern Goshawk. Keane and Morrison (1994), in the first sympo-
The characteristics oftopography and forest cov- sium on the ecology and management ofNorthern
er reportedly used by goshawks in New England Goshawks, stressed the importance of identifying
show similar patterns to other parts of the species’ effects of scale and biological organization in eco-
range in North America. Nesting occurs in mature logical studies. In the same symposium, Graham et
coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forest, typically al. (1994) recommended that management ofgos-
on gentle rather than steep terrain, in proximity hawks take place in large tracts of forest, which
to some forest openings, but mostly awayfrom well- should be viewed as sustainable ecological units
used roads and human habitation. Similar patterns rather than smaller tracts or individual goshawk
in nesting cover have been reported for other home ranges. Of the potential spatial scales that
northeastern states (outside of New England) In can be addressed, most forest wildlife biologists
.
New Jersey and New York, goshawks selected ex- stressed the importance of, and need for, studies
tensive mature forested areas for nesting, particu- at large landscape levels (DeStefano 2002).
larly in mixed hardwood-coniferous stands with New England would offer an interesting oppor-
greater numbers of large trees (>20 cm Diameter tunity to examine how goshawks have responded
Breast Height) and high tree basal area (Allen to a changing landscape. Widespread intensive
1978, Speiser and Bosakowski 1987, Bosakowski land clearing and logging have given way to exten-
and Speiser 1994). Hemlock, pine, and cedar {Cha- sive reforestation ofsecond- or multi-growth forest,
maecyparis thyoides) dominated nest sites, while oaks embodying changes that have taken place over the
were less prevalent, although nests were usually in last 2-3 centuries. Today, small, rare, and widely-
deciduous hardwood trees. Nests were present on dispersed patches of old-growth or virgin forest, al-
gentle slopes or flat terrain, away from southern tered disturbance regimes including reduced tim-
exposures, small forest tracts, paved roads, and hu- ber harvest, dominant mid-aged forest, loss of
man habitation. early-successional-stage cover, and increases in hu-
Kenward (1996) speculated that goshawks in man densities and development offer an opportu-
North America may face more competition from nity to see how goshawks have dealt with these
Red-tailed Hawks {Buteo jamaicensis) Red-shoul- changes in the northeast. This investigation would
dered Hawks (B. lineatus) and Great Horned Owls also offer insights into similar developing trends in
{Bubo vir^nianus) than goshawks face in Europe the western U.S. Well distributed and coordinated
with similar raptor species. Red-tailed and Red- monitoring of goshawk populations on randomly
shouldered hawks are found throughout New En- selected forested areas in New England, perhaps
gland, except for northernmost Maine for the Red- stratified by state, forest cover type, or ecological
shouldered Hawk, and are regular breeders region, would be an appropriate approach. Surveys
(DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Red-shouldered for goshawks could also include other forest rap-
Hawks inhabit mature deciduous-coniferous forest, tors and m^or prey species, given recent emphasis
while Red-tailed Hawks are found in more open away from single-species approaches and toward
habitats (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Great biodiversity (DeStefano 2002). However, the extent
Horned Owls are uncommon, but widespread, and and effort required would be large, given the large
are found year-round throughout all of New En- spatial and temporal scales involved.
gland, occurring in all types ofcover (DeGraafand
Acknowledgments
Yinatmearsaacktiion2s00a1)m.oAnlgththoeusgehrlaiptttloerisskpencoiewsn, agbivoeunt tthhee theIirambusgyrastecfhueldutloesthteo bainoslwogeirstmsywhquoesttoiooknstiambeouotutgoos-f
potential for aggressive interactions (Crannell and hawks: Tom Hodgman (Maine), Scott Melvin (Massachu-
DeStefano 1992, Rohner and Doyle 1992), this may setts), Christopher Gaughan (New Hampshire), Steve
be an important local influence on the distribution Parren, Steve Faccio, and Rosalind Renfrew (Vermont),
Mariko Yamasaki (White Mountain National Forest), and
of goshawks in some parts of the region. Broad-
Clayton Grove (Green Mountain National Forest). Bar-
scale loss of hemlocks and the conditions offorest bara Loucks and Paul Novak also provided information
cover and canopy closure they create could also on goshawks in neighboring New York. Special thanks to
September 2005 Conservation 349
Clint Boal for urging me forward on this topic, Mariko and habitat studies in determining the status of
Yamasaki, Helen Snyder, and Michael Goldstein for re- Northern Goshawks {Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) with
viewing the manuscript, and Richard DeGraaffor our dis- special reference to Crocker-Bedford (1990) and Ken-
cussions and his insights and knowledge ofall things New nedy (1997)./ RaptorRes. 32:329—336.
England.
Cronin, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists,
Literature Cited and the ecology ofNew England. Hill and Wang, New
NY
York, U.S.A.
Adamus, P.R. 1987. Atlas of breeding birds in Maine, Davis, M.B. 1996. Eastern old-growth forests, prospects
1978—83. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and for rediscovery and recovery. Island Press, Covelo, CA
ME
Wildlife, Augusta, U.S.A. U.S.A.
Allen, B.A. 1978. Nesting ecology of the goshawk in the Dearborn, N. 1903. The birds of Durham and vicinity.
Adirondacks. M.S. thesis, State Univ. New York Col- Contributions from the Zoology Laboratory 6, New
NY
lege, Syracuse, U.S.A. Hampshire College ofAgriculture and the Mechanic
Allen, G.M. 1903. A list of the birds ofNew Hampshire. Arts, Durham, NH U.S.A.
NH
Nature Study Press, Manchester, U.S.A. DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England
Andersen, D.E., S. DeStefano, M.I. Goldstein, K. Titus, wildlife. Univ. Press of New England, Hanover, NH
D.C. Crocker-Bedford, JJ- Keane, R.G. Anthony, U.S.A.
and R.N. Rosenfield. 2003. The status of the North- DeStefano, S. 1998. Determining the status ofNorthern
ern Goshawk in the western United States. Wildlife Goshawks in the West: is our conceptual model cor-
Society Technical Review 04-01, The Wildlife Society, rect?/. RaptorRes. 32:342-348.
MD
Bethesda, U.S.A. 2002. Regional and national issues for forestwild-
.
Askins, R.A. 2001. Sustaining biological diversity in early life research and management. For. Sci. 48:181-189.
successional communities: the challenge ofmanaging Doyle, F.l. andJ.M.N. Smith. 1994. Population response
unpopular habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:407-412. of Northern Goshawks to the 10-year cycle in num-
Bagg, A.C. and S.A. Eliot, Jr. 1937. Birds of the Con- bers of snowshoe hares. Stud. Avian Biol. 16:122-129.
necticut Valley in Massachusetts. Hampshire Book- Ellsworth, J.W. and B.C. McComb. 2003. Potential ef-
MA
shop, Northampton, U.S.A. fects of Passenger Pigeon flocks on the structure and
Bent, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds composition ofpresettlement forests ofeastern North
of prey. Part I. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 170, America. Conserv. Biol. 17:1548-1558.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC U.S.A. Enser, R.W. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds in Rhode
Bevier, L.R. (Ed.). 1994. The adas of breeding birds of Island. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Management, Providence, RI U.S.A.
Survey of Connecticut, Hartford, CT U.S.A. Forbush, E.H. 1925-1929. Birds of Massachusetts and
Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners ofthe north- other New England states. 3 vols. Massachusetts De-
MA
ern United States, 1994. U.S. Forest Service, Resource partment ofAgriculture, Boston, U.S.A.
Bulletin NE-136, Radnor, PA U.S.A. Foss, C.R. 1994. Atlas of breeding birds in New Hamp-
Blockstein, D.E. 2002. Passenger Pigeon {Ectopistes mig- shire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Dover,
NH
ratorius). In A. Poole and F. Gill, [Eds.], The birds of U.S.A.
North America, No. 611. The Birds ofNorthAmerica, Foster, D.R. 2002. Insights from historical geography to
Inc., Philadelphia, PA U.S.A. ecology and conservation: lessons from the New En-
Bosakowski, T. and R.E. Speiser. 1994. Macrohabitat se- gland landscape./. Biogeography 29:1269—1275.
lection by nesting Northern Goshawks: implications G. Motzkin, D. Bernardos, and Cardoza.
, J.
for managing eastern forests. Stud. Avian Biol. 16:46- 2002. Wildlife dynamics in the changingNewEngland
49. landscape./. Biogeography 29:1337-1357.
Brooks, R.T. and T.W. Birch. 1988. Changes in New En- Fuller, T.K. and S. DeStefano. 2003. Relative impor-
gland forests and forest owners: implications for wild- tance ofearly-successional forests and shrubland hab-
life habitat resources and management. Transactions itats to mammals in the northeastern United States.
ofthe North American Wildlife and NaturalResources Con- For. Ecol. Manage. 185:75—79.
ference 53:78—87. Graham, R.T., R.T. Reynolds, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett,
Cogbill, C.V., Burk, and G. Motzkin. 2002. The for- AND D.A. Boyce. 1994. Sustaining forest habitat for
J.
ests of presetdement New England, USA: spatial and the Northern Goshawk: a question of scale. Stud. Avi-
compositional patterns based on town proprietor sur- an Biol. 16:12—17.
veys./. Biogeography 29:1279-1304. Griscom, L. and D.E. Snyder. 1955. The birds of Massa-
Crannell, D. and S. DeStefano. 1992. An aggressive in- chusetts, an annotated and revised check list. Peabody
MA
teraction between a Northern Goshawk and a Red- Museum, Salem, U.S.A.
tailed Hawk./. RaptorRes. 26:269—270. Hall, B., G. Motzkin, D.R. Foster, M. Syfert, and
J.
Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1998. The value ofdemographic Burk. 2002. Three hundred years of forest and land-
:
350 DeStefano VoL. 39, No. 3
use change in Massachusetts, U.S.A. Biogeogr. 29: Horned Owl kills adult goshawk: exceptional obser-
J.
1319-1335. vation or community process? Raptor Res. 26:261—
J.
Hoffman, R. 1904. A guide to the birds ofNew England 263.
and eastern NewYork. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA Rusch, D.H., S. DeStefano, M.G. Reynolds, and D. Lau-
A
U.S.A. TEN. 2000. Ruffed Grouse {Bonasa umbellus). In
Keane,JJ- AND M.L. Morrison. 1994. Northern Goshawk Poole and F. Gill [Eds.] The birds ofNorth America,
ecology: effects of scale and levels of biological orga- No. 515. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadel-
nization. Stud. Avian Biol. 16:3-11. phia, PA U.S.A.
Kennedy, P.L. 1997. The Northern Goshawk {Accipitergen- Sage, J.H., L.B. Bishop, and W.P. Bliss. 1913. The birds
tilis atricapillus) is there evidence of a population de- of Connecticut. Connecticut Geolo^cal and Nat. History
cline? Raptor Res. 31:95-106. Surv. Bull. 20.
J.
Kenward, R.E. 1996. Goshawk adaptation to deforesta- Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, andJ. Fallon. 2003. The North
tion: does Europe differ from North America? Pages American breeding bird survey, results and analysis
233-243 in D. Bird, D. Varland, and Negro [Eds.], 1966-2002. Version 2003.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife
J.
Raptors in hnman landscapes. Academic Press, Inc., Research Center, Laurel, MD U.S.A. (http://www.
San Diego, CA U.S.A. mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/)
Kizlinski, M.L., D.A. Orwig, R.C. Cobb, and D.R. Foster. Speiser, R. and T. Bosakowski. 1987. Nest site selection
2002. Direct and indirect ecosystem consequences of by Northern Goshawks in northern New Jersey and
an invasive pest on forests dominated by eastern hem- southeastern New York. Condor 89:387-394.
lock./. 29:1489-1503. Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Gos-
Laughlin, S.B. and D.P. Kibbe. [Eds.]. 1985. The atlas of hawk {Accipitergentilis). InA. Poole and F. Gill [Eds.],
breeding birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New En- The birds of North America, No. 298. The Birds of
NH
gland, Hanover, U.S.A. North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA U.S.A.
Litvaitis, J.A. 2001. Importance of early successional Thompson, F.R., III, and R.M. DeGraaf. 2001. Conser-
habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildl. Soc. Bull. vation approaches for woody, early successional com-
29:466-473. munities in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
Lorimer, C.G. 2001. Historical and ecological roles of 29:483-494.
disturbance in eastern North American forests: 9,000 Tingley, M.W., D.A. Orwig, R. Field, and G. Motzkin
years of change. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:425-439. 2002. Avian response to removal ofa forest dominant’
Orwig, D.A., D.R. Foster, and D.L. Mausel. 2002. Land- consequences of hemlock woolly adelgid infestations.
scape patterns of hemlock decline in New England Biogeography 29:1505-1516.
J.
due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid. Bio- Veit, R. and W.R. Petersen. 1993. Birds ofMassachusetts.
J.
geography 29:1475-1487. Mass. Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA U.S.A.
Paillet, el. 2002. Chestnut: history and ecology of a Walker, L.C. 1999. The North American forests, geog-
transformed species./. Biogeography raphy, ecology, and silviculture. CRC Press, Boca Ra-
Parker, G. 1995. Eastern coyote, the story of its success. ton, FL U.S.A.
Nimbus Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetherbee, D.K. 1945. The birds and mammals of
Parshall, T. and D.R. Foster. 2002. Fire on the New Worcester County, Massachusetts. Century Press,
MA
England landscape: regional and temporal variation, Worcester, U.S.A.
cultural and environmental controls. Biogeography
J.
29:1305-1317. Received 24 March 2004; accepted 2 September 2004
Rohner, C. and R.I. Doyle. 1992. Food-stressed Great Associate Editor: Clint W. Boal