
uncultivated area of each State or Province (adjusted in a few 
eases for large portions that occur in ecological regions where 
there is no woodcock habitat). The relative sizes of areas are 
shown in table 2. Further details are in the 1960 Woodcock 
Status Report (U. 8S. Pish and Wildlife Service, Special 
Scientific Report--Wildlife No. 50). It is realized that mich 
unfavorable nesting habitat is included. 
Results 
Table 1 shows the changes from 1962 to 1963 in numbers of 
woodcock recorded on survey routes, adjusted only for varying 
numbers of stops along the same routes in the 2 years. Popula- 
tion changes are shown in table 2. The population index 
(average number of birds per route, weighted by the proportion 
of uncultivated land area in each State and Province) declined 
7 percent in the Eastern Region from 1962 to 1963 but increased 
16 percent in the Western Region. The continent-wide change 
(both regions combined) was a 6-percent increase. 
The mean difference in number of birds per route (1962 
minus 1963 ) was calculated for the 10 States and Provinces in 
which 10 or more comparable routes were covered each year. 
Although 10 or more comparable routes were covered each year 
in ¢ States and Provinces in the Kast, only counts in 
Connecticut showed a statistically significant change (decline ) 
in mean numbers of birds per route (mean difference and standard 
error, -1.23 + 0.41). Therefore, it is unlikely that there 
was an important change in woodcock numbers in the Eastern 
Region. 
Information is more limited for the West because only 
3 States had 10 or more comparable routes. Michigan and 
Minnesota showed a significant increase in mean numbers of 
birds per route (Michigan, 2.04 + 0.60; Minnesota, 1.50 + 
0.53). Possibly, some of the increase noted for Michigan 
was caused by more birds being recorded giving only Me Lec 
songs"; however, as indicated earlier, the change in recording 
procedures should not have affected comparability of counts. 
. Foe 
