McElhone et al. • HABITAT CHANGE AND CERULEAN WARBLERS 
707 
Trends in Cerulean Warbler populations did not 
relate well to forest metrics, and loss of suitable 
forested habitat is still considered a major cause 
for Cerulean Warbler population declines in the 
core breeding range (Hamel et al. 2004). Our 
study illustrates the potential importance of 
microhabitat features such as small, isolated 
canopy gaps (Perkins 2006) that we were unable 
to detect with our coarse land cover analysis. 
Broad habitat features such as deciduous/mixed 
forest and forest-forest edge density decreased 
over time, while Cerulean Warbler detections 
increased, but none of these habitat variables 
account for canopy gaps or vegetation structure. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
We thank the US Fish und Wildlife Service, West 
Virginia Division of Natural Resources, National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation, and the National Council for Air and 
Stream Improvement for financial support. We especially 
thank Keith Pardieck and Dave Ziolkowski, national 
coordinators of the Breeding Bird Survey, for access to 
and assistance with BBS data. We thank the many BBS 
observers whose participation was instrumental to the 
success of our study. Matthew Shumar. Molly McDermottt, 
Jackie Slrager. Brandon Miller, and Sandy Taylor helped 
with data collection and organization. Fekcdulegn Desta 
provided statistical support and Michael Strager provided 
logistical and technical support. The West Virginia 
Division of Natural Resources und Kentucky Department 
of Fish and Wildlife Resources provided off-road point- 
count data. Michael Strager, Keith Pardieck, and Dan 
McAuley provided valuable comments on this manuscript. 
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 
LITERATURE CITED 
Barg. J. j. Jones, and R. J. Robertson. 2005. 
Describing breeding territories of migratory passer¬ 
ines: suggestions for sampling, choice of estimator, 
and delineation of core areas, Journal of Animal 
Ecology 74:139-14V. 
Bart. J.. M. Hofschein. and B. G. Peterjohn. 1995. 
Reliability of the Breeding Bird Survey: effects of 
restricting surveys to roads. Auk 112:758-761. 
Betts. M. G„ D. Mitchell. A. W. Diamond, and J. Bety. 
2007. Uneven rates of landscape change as a source of 
bias in roadside wildlife surveys. Journal of Wildlife 
Management 71:2266-2273. 
Bosworth. S. B. 2003. Cerulean Warbler relative abun¬ 
dance and frequency of occurrence relative to large- 
scale edge. Thesis. West Virginia University. Morgan¬ 
town. USA. 
Blehler. d. a.. J. J. Giocomo, J. Jones, P. B. Hamel, 
C. M. Rogers. T. A. Beachy. D. W Varble, C. P. 
Nicholson. K. L. Roth. J. Barg. R. J. Robertson, 
J. R. Robb, and K. Islam. 2008. Cerulean Warbler 
reproduction, survival, and models of population 
decline. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:646-653. 
Demarest. D. 2003. Northern Cumberland Plateau. 
Physiographic Area 21 -Executive Summary. Partners 
in Flight. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 
New York. USA. www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/ 
pl_21sum.htm 
DONOVAN. T. M. and C. H. Flather. 2002. Relationships 
among North American songbird trends, habitat 
fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecological 
Applications 12:364-374. 
HAMEL, P. B. 2000a. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica 
cerulea). The birds of North America. Number 511. 
Hamel. P. B. 2000b. Cerulean Warbler status assessment. 
USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 
USA. www.fws.gov/Midwest/eco_scrv/soc/birds/ 
cerw/cewa_sa.httnl 
Hamel, P. B„ D. K. Dawson, and P. D. Keyser. 2004. 
How we can lcam more about the Cerulean Warbler 
(Dendroica cerulea). Auk 121:7-14. 
HAZLER. K. R.. A. J. AMACHER. R. A. Lancia, AND J. A. 
Gerwin. 2006. Factors influencing Acadian Flycatcher 
nesting success in an intensively managed forest 
landscape. Journal of Wildlife Manaeement 70:532- 
538. 
Homer. C., C. Huang. L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 
2004. Development of a 2001 national land-cover 
database for the United Slates. Phoiogrammetric 
Engineering and Remote Sensing 70:829-840. 
Keller, C. M. E. and J. T. Scallan. 1999. Potential 
roadside biases due to habitat changes along Breeding 
Bird Survey routes. Cundor 101:50-57. 
McElhonf., P. M. 2009. Cerulean Warbler population and 
habitat changes along Breeding Bird Survey routes in 
the central Appalachians. Thesis. West Virginia 
University, Morgantown. USA. 
McGarigal, K.. S. A. Cushman. M. C. Nef.l. and E. Ene. 
2002. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program 
lor categorical maps. Computer software program 
produced by the authors at tile University of Mass¬ 
achusetts, Amherst, USA. www.umass.edu/landeco/ 
research/fragstats/fragstats.html 
O'Connor. R. J.. E. Dunn. D. H. Johnson, S, L. Jones, D. 
Petit. K. Pollock. C. R. Smith, J. L, Trapp, and E. 
Welling. 2000. A programmatic review of the North 
American Breeding Bird Survey. Report of a peer 
review panel. USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research 
Center. Laurel. Maryland, USA. www.pwrc.usgs.gov/ 
BBS/bbsrev iew/bbsfinal.pdt 
Oliarnyk. C. J. 1996. Habitat selection and reproductive 
success in a population of Cerulean Warblers in 
southeastern Ontario. Thesis. Queen's University, 
Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 
Oliarnyk, C. J. and R. J. Robertson. 1996. Breeding 
behavior and reproductive success of Cerulean War¬ 
blers in southeastern Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 
108:673-684. 
Paton. P. W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest 
success: how strong is the evidence? Conservation 
Biology 8:17-26. 
Perkins. K. A. 2006. Cerulean Warbler selection of forest 
