- Global Rank: G4 Key to global and state ranks
- State Rank: S2S3N
- WBCI Priority: SGCN, SBIRD, State Special Concern
- WSO Checklist Project: stable (1983-2007)
- Breeding Range: Poorly known but disjunct locations from western Alaska and Northwest Territories east to Akimiski Island-James Bay (Elphick and Klima 2002, Bird Studies Canada 2006).
- Breeding Habitat: Wet sedge, coastal freshwater marsh, wet prairies, or grass tundra with widely scattered small trees (Godfrey 1986).
- Nest: Shallow scrape on ground, often under shrub or in grass tussock (Elphick and Klima 2002).
- Nesting Dates: Does not nest in Wisconsin; Eggs: mid-May to mid-July (Elphick and Klima 2002).
- Foraging: Probes (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
- Migrant Status: Neotropical migrant.
- Habitat use during Migration: Great Lakes Beach and Dune, Northern Sedge Meadow and Marsh, Southern Sedge Meadow and Marsh, Emergent Marsh, Row Crop, Wet-Mesic Prairie, Wet Prairie, coastal marshes of Lakes Superior and Michigan, and other coastal habitats including salt marsh, shell banks, and brackish swamps (Elphick and Klima 2002).
- Arrival Dates: Late April in spring; mid-August in fall (Robbins 1991).
- Departure Dates: Early June in spring; late October in fall (Robbins 1991).
- Winter Range: Half the world’s population winters in Tierra del Fuego, mainly at Bahía San Sebastián, Argentina, with another significant concentration in Chile, on Chiloé Island; also along the Atlantic coast of Brazil and Pacific coast of Peru (Elphick and Klima 2002).
- Winter Habitat: Tidal mudflats of larger bays in s. South America. At Bahía San Sebastián, Argentina, many are found on channeled mudflats (Elphick and Klima 2002).
- Audubon WatchList species account: http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=107
- Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan: http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/spec/cscp/cont_e.cfm
- Cornell Lab of Ornithology species account: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Hudsonian_Godwit.html
- Management for Breeding and Migrating Shorebirds in the Midwest (USFWS): http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/wmh/13_2_14.pdf
- Natural Resources Conservation Service Jobsheet 646: http://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/biology/646_jobsheet.pdf
- Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/UMVGL5.doc
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Shorebirds: Winging between Hemispheres: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/shrbird/shrbird.html
- U.S. Geological Survey species account: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i2510id.html
- U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf
- Wisconsin Natural Resources magazine shorebird article: http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2002/apr02/shorebird.htm
- Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature, Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Interim Database, 31 July 2006. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/datapolicy.html
- Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R.Gill, eds. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf (8 May 2007)
- Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birders handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York.
- Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. Chapter 13.2.14 In U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Management Handbook. Washington, D.C.
- Elphick, C. S., and J. Klima. 2002. Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica). In The Birds of North America, No. 629 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
- Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 595 pp.
- Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Manomet, MA.
- Knapp, N.F. 2001. Migrant shorebird, breeding waterfowl, and invertebrate response to conditions in temporary wetlands in east central South Dakota during spring. South Dakota State University Master of Science thesis. 200 pp.
- Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bull.111:67–85.
- Robbins, S. D. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife: population & distribution, past & present. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
- Szalay, F., D. Helmers, D. Humbug. S.J. Lewis, B. Pardo, and M. Shieldcastle. 2000. Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. In U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. http://www.shorebirdplan.fws.gov/ (8 May 2007)
- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Wetland Management Team. 2003. Reversing the loss: A strategy for protecting and restoring wetlands in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/wetlands/documents/reversing.pdf
- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2005. Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI.
- Compiler: William P. Mueller, iltlawas@earthlink.net | Kim Kreitinger, K.Kreitinger@gmail.com
- Editor: Andy Paulios, Andy.Paulios@Wisconsin.gov
Status/Protection
Population Information
There are currently no broad-scale projects designed to identify population size or monitor changes within shorebird populations (Brown et al. 2001). The North American population estimate is 70,000 (Morrison et al. 2006).
Life History
Habitat Selection
In disjunct locations throughout Alaska and Canada, the Hudsonian Godwit breeds in wet sedge, wet prairie, coastal freshwater marsh, or grass tundra as well as open bogs within a coniferous or mixed coniferous forest matrix. During migration it uses a wide variety of wetland habitats, including the shores and shallow water of lakes, ponds, and rain pools, sewage ponds, shallow marshes, wet prairies, and flooded agricultural fields (Godfrey 1986, Elphick and Klima 2002). It is believed that this species makes long, non-stop migratory flights and uses only a few staging areas throughout North America (Elphick and Klima 2002). Although Wisconsin does not harbor any major staging areas for this species, a small number of individuals occur annually in the state (Robbins 1991).
Habitat Availability
A small migratory population (25-100 birds estimated) regularly migrates through central Illinois and south central and eastern Wisconsin in the spring. During spring migration, small numbers of Hudsonian Godwits regularly migrate through parts of central and eastern Wisconsin, although their main migratory route occurs west of the state through the Great Plains. Stopover opportunities for this uncommon migrant have been reduced as a result of wetland loss, tiling and draining of agricultural fields, and the dredging and diking of rivers. Prior to Euro-American settlement, wetlands occupied an estimated four million hectares of the total fourteen million hectares of Wisconsin’s land area. Today, 53% (2.1 million hectares) of these wetland habitats remain (WDNR 2003) and conditions at these sites can be extremely variable and highly dependent on precipitation and hydrology patterns (Szalay et al. 2000). Furthermore, exotic species (e.g., purple loosestrife, zebra mussel, carp) and industrial effluents have the potential to reduce invertebrate food resources at these sites (WDNR 2005). Man-made impoundments, such as sewage ponds and stock ponds, often provide stable food resources as do wildlife refuges and other state protected lands.
Population Concerns
The impacts of market hunting during the nineteenth century are not well known for this species but likely caused declines (Elphick and Klima 2002). Today, the North American population estimate is 70,000, which was derived primarily from wintering ground data (Morrison et al. 2006). Its relatively small population size and few concentration sites make it highly vulnerable to habitat loss or catastrophic events.
Recommended Management
Preventing habitat destruction and minimizing factors that compromise the maintenance of invertebrate populations are important management considerations. The continuation of wetland management, protection, and restoration efforts such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, and North American Wetland Conservation Act will benefit this and other waterbird species. Wetland restoration efforts should create complexes of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands within areas that will increase overall wetland connectivity (Knapp 2001). Management actions (e.g., disking and flooding, control of invasive wetland plants, periodic, slow drawdown) that create mosaics of mudflats and shallow water areas will provide foraging habitat for Hudsonian Godwits and other migrant shorebirds (Eldridge 1992). Managed wetland drawdowns should coincide with shorebird migration but should be staggered across units to extend habitat and food resource availability throughout the entire migratory period (Helmers 1992). Conservation and management efforts for this species should be focused in the following Wisconsin ecological landscapes: Central Lake Michigan Coastal, Northern Lake Michigan Coastal, Southeast Glacial Plains (WDNR 2005), and Superior Coastal Plain (B. Russell, pers. comm.).
Research Needs
Research needs for Hudsonian Godwits are significant, but of critical conservation importance is the delineation of breeding areas and migratory pathways. Of particular interest is the question of why the current breeding distribution is so fragmented and why Hudsonian Godwits are not found in apparently suitable habitat outside of the current breeding range. In all phases of its annual cycle, more information is needed on foraging ecology (Elphick and Klima 2002). Improved survey methods and an institutional capacity for monitoring this and other shorebird species also are urgently needed (Brown et al. 2001). In particular, long-term studies that measure demographic variables such as reproductive success and survivorship would further conservation efforts (Elphick and Klima 2002).
Information Sources
References
Contact Information