Red-Headed Woodpecker - Melanerpes erythrocephalus
( Linnaeus, 1758 )

 

 

No Map Available

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$Photo1 in /var/www/vhosts/virtualzoo/classifications/display.php on line 584
No Photo Available No Map Available

Subspecies: Unknown
Est. World Population:

CITES Status: NOT LISTED
IUCN Status: Least Concern
U.S. ESA Status: NOT LISTED

Body Length:
Tail Length:
Shoulder Height:
Weight:

Top Speed:
Jumping Ability: (Horizontal)

Life Span: in the Wild
Life Span: in Captivity

Sexual Maturity: (Females)
Sexual Maturity: (Males)
Litter Size:
Gestation Period:

Habitat:
It inhabits mature lowland forest with dead trees for nesting, open areas for fly-catching and a relatively open understorey. There are low rates of nest survival, with nests with a great amount of vegetation around the nest cavity having the greatest survial rates (Berl et al. 2014). It is strongly aggressive, particularly when defending food storage sites, and is interspecifically territorial against the Red-bellied Woodpecker M. carolinus (Reller 1972). It is omnivorous, eating a high proportion of animal matter in spring, but seeds predominate in winter. It breeds from April to September.


Range:
Melanerpes erythrocephalus is found in central and eastern USA, from Montana to the Atlantic coast and south to the Gulf of Mexico, and in extreme southern Canada (del Hoyo et al. 2002). The northern populations are migratory (Smith et al. 2000, del Hoyo et al. 2002), and historically its movements were influenced by nut crops from the now non-existent northern beech Fagus forests (Smith et al. 2000). It has experienced a steady decline of 2.5% annually since 1966 (J. Wells and K. Rosenberg in litt. 2003), with the most severe declines in Florida and the Great Lakes Plain (del Hoyo et al. 2002).


Conservation:
Conservation Actions Underway
It occurs in a number of protected areas, but no species-specific actions are known.

Conservation Actions Proposed
Continue to monitor population trends. Monitor rates of habitat loss and degradation. Evaluate migration ecology and habitat use during breeding and non-breeding seasons (J. Berl in litt. 2016). Use fire for its positive effects - prescribed burning and understorey thinning increased numbers in Arkansas by creating more open forest stands, improving foraging opportunities; however, whilst burning may create nest-snags, it also destroys existing nest-snags. Creation or maintenance of snags for nesting and roosting is of prime importance. Snags should be retained, in groups if possible. Dead branches should be retained on big trees in non-urban areas and only selectively pruned where hazardous in urban areas. Additionally, retain partially dead trees with some live vegetation as these appear to be important for nesting success (e.g. Berl et al. 2014). Selective thinning of live trees appears to have a positive effect (e.g. removal of 50% of oak trees for prairie restoration on a reserve in Ohio immediately attracted nesting birds); and removal of shade tolerant trees could be of particular benefit in restoring open understorey savanna or parkland (J. Berl in litt. 2016).


Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Additions?
Please contact The Virtual Zoo Staff


You are visitor count here since 21 May 2013

page design & content copyright © 2025 Andrew S. Harris

return to virtualzoo.org home

This page reprinted from http://www.virtualzoo.org. Copyright © 2025 Andrew S. Harris.

The Virtual Zoo, San Jose, CA 95125, USA