Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
MT Gov Logo
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Horned Lark - Eremophila alpestris

Image Copyright and Usage Information
Native Species

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S5
(see State Rank Reason below)


Agency Status
USFWS: MBTA
USFS:
BLM:
PIF:


 

External Links


Listen to an Audio Sample
Copyright by: The Macaulay Library at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, all rights reserved.
State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Species is relatively common within suitable habitat and widely distributed across portions of the state
  •  Details on Status Ranking and Review
    Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) Conservation Status Review
    Review Date = 12/22/2011
    Population Size

    ScoreH - >1,000,000 individuals

    CommentRecent Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) Program data for 2010 estimates the statewide population at 11,120,885 +/- SD of 1,668,132.

    Range Extent

    ScoreG - 200,000-2,500,000 km squared (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)

    Comment380,531 square kilometers based on Natural Heritage Program range maps that appear on the Montana Field Guide

    Area of Occupancy

    ScoreU - Unknown

    CommentUnknown.

    Long-term Trend

    ScoreE - Relatively Stable (±25% change)

    CommentAlthough grassland covertypes have been drastically reduced in Montana since European arrival, the species still uses agricultural lands so populations have likely been stable within +/- 25% since European arrival.

    Short-term Trend

    ScoreD - Declining. Decline of 10-30% in population, range, area occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences

    CommentBreeding Bird Survey data for Montana is of high credibility and shows a significant negative trend of -1.4% per year or a 13% decrease per decade. Most surrounding states and provinces with suitable habitat show similar levels of decline (Idaho is the exception).

    Threats

    ScoreF - Widespread, low-severity threat. Threat is of low severity but affects (or would affect) most or a significant portion of the population or area.

    CommentAgricultural impacts such as pesticide and herbicide use and collisions with vehicles and wind turbines are likely the greatest threats to the species.

    SeverityLow - Low but nontrivial reduction of species population or reversible degradation or reduction of habitat in area affected, with recovery expected in 10-50 years.

    CommentSpecies should recover quickly if threats are removed.

    ScopeModerate - 20-60% of total population or area affected

    CommentLikely that greater than 20% of population is affected by a combination of agriculture and/or collisions.

    ImmediacyModerate - Threat is likely to be operational within 2-5 years.

    CommentOngoing

    Intrinsic Vulnerability

    ScoreC - Not Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance; or species has high dispersal capability such that extirpated populations soon become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

    CommentNot Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has a high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance. Species has good dispersal capabilities such that extirpated populations generally become reestablished through natural recolonization.

    Environmental Specificity

    ScoreC - Moderate. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or other abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species but some key requirements are scarce in the generalized range of the species within the area of interest.

    CommentModerate Generalist. Use a variety of natural and human altered landscapes with low cover grassland vegetation.

 
General Description
Small, ground-dwelling oscine with "horns" - occipital feather tufts - which can be raised or lowered but are usually erect in males. Males slightly larger and darker than females. Basic plumage: nape, back, rump, and dorsal surfaces of the rectrices and remiges are shades of brown streaked with dusky brown to black. Breast and abdomen cinnamon to white. Head strikingly marked with black lores, cheek patches, the occipital feather tufts, and breast patch. Geographic variation is most obvious in body size and coloration, especially of the eyebrow stripe, throat, and ear coverts which vary from white to yellow. The variation in back color is strongly correlated with the color of the local soil. During winter, often occurs in mixed flocks with other species such as longspurs, Snow Buntings, and pipits (Beason 1995).

For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.

Species Range
Montana Range Range Descriptions

Year-round

Western Hemisphere Range


eBird Occurrence Map

Click the map for more info.
Courtesy of eBird and Cornell Lab of Ornithology
 


Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 38143

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density

Recency

SUMMER (Feb 16 - Dec 14)
Direct Evidence of Breeding

Indirect Evidence of Breeding

No Evidence of Breeding

WINTER (Dec 15 - Feb 15)
Regularly Observed

Not Regularly Observed


 

(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)



Migration
In the Bozeman area, normal migration periods are March 5 to April 25 and September 25 to November 1.

Habitat
Open, generally barren country; avoids forests. Prefers bare ground to grasses taller than a few cm (Beason 1995).

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  •  Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: mtnhp.org/requests) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
In winter, mostly seeds. During the breeding season, adults eat mostly seeds but feed insects to their young. Adults take more insects during the spring and fall than at other times, perhaps to compensate for the energetic demands of breeding and molt (Beason 1995).

Reproductive Characteristics
May nest on marshy soil but generally prefers, throughout its range, bare ground such as plowed or fall-planted fields. Digs a nest cavity or may use a natural depression. Eggs are ovate; ground color varies from dark pearl gray to pale gray, and are spotted. Clutch size varies 2 to 5 eggs (Beason 1995). Nests in Teton County have been found from April 10 to July 19. Nests with eggs as early as May 10 have been found in the Bozeman area.

Stewardship Responsibility

Based on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's latest predicted habitat suitability model

Total species' range in Montana 381,165 km2 (100% of Montana)
Area predicted to have
some level of suitable habitat		 280,379 km2 (74% of Montana)

Stewardship responsibility for the predicted area of suitable habitat can be broken down as follows

  Total Suitable Moderate Suitability Low Suitability
Federal 14% 7% 7%
State 7% 4% 3%
Local <1% <1% <1%
Conservation Lands/Easements 2% 1% 1%
Private/Tribal/Unknown 76% 47% 29%

See the Habitat Suitability for Biodiversity task in Map Viewer for a more detailed look at stewardship responsibilities within a variety of local jurisdictions.


References
  •  Literature Cited Above
  •  Additional References
  •  Web Search Engines for Articles on "Horned Lark"
  •  Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
Login
Citation for data on this website:
Horned Lark — Eremophila alpestris.  Montana Field Guide.  .  Retrieved on , from