The barred owl (Strix varia), also known as northern barred owl or, more informally, hoot owl, is a large species of owl. A member of the true owl family, Strigidae, they belong to the genus Strix, which is also the origin of the family’s name under Linnaean taxonomy.  Barred owls are brown to gray overall with dark striping on the underside contrasted immediately above that with similarly-dark and tight barring about their throat and nape.  Barred owls are largely native to eastern North America but have expanded their range to the west coast of North America, where they are considered invasive.    Mature forests are their preferred habitat, but they are also may be able to acclimate to various gradiants of open woodlands.  Their diet consists mainly of small mammals, but this species is an opportunistic predator and is known to prey upon other small vertebrates such as birds, reptiles, and amphibians as well as a variety of invertebrates.  Barred owls are typical for a member of the genera in terms of their nesting habits, tending to raise a relatively small brood often in a tree hollow or snag (but sometimes also in other nesting sites) deep in the woods.  By far the most controversial aspect of the barred owls current state is, upon their westward expansion, their encroachment of the range of their cousin, the threatened spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). Evidence shows the assorted threats posed by the invading barred species are only increasing. In turn, biologists have recommended culling operations to mitigate the deleterious effect of the barred on the spotted owl species.  
The barred owl is considered somewhat “subdued” and “drab” in coloration compared to the sometimes rich coloring of other sympatric owls.  Overall, this owl is greyish-brown or brown. The brownish color extends from the head to the back. Barred owls are scalloped with white bars on the mantle and the back, bearing as well some whitish spotting on the wing coverts.   The underside has a pale creamy gray-brown base color (ranging into dirty white in the palest individuals) overlaid about the throat and upper chest with horizontal, slightly crescent-shaped barring (hence its common name) while the belly is boldly streaked in a vertical pattern. The streaking is usually blackish or dusky brown or, sometimes, rufescent-brown.   The head is fairly large (although not especially so for a species in Strix) and rounded with no ear tufts.   The facial disc is pale grayish-brown with darker yet subtle concentric lines.  The bill is pale straw-yellow (occasionally showing a mild greenish tint) while the cere is “horn”-colored.   Its eyes are of a blackish-brown color, this being the only true owl of the eastern United States which has brown eyes; all others have yellow eyes.  The eyes may regularly appear intensely black in the field and, although large, are fairly closely set.  The barred owl has a well-developed eye anatomy. As is typical of owls, their ocular anatomy is quite distinct from diurnal raptors especially in terms of their photoreceptor cells, as they have a very large number of rod cells in their quite sensitive retina.   However, their pecten oculi is fairly smaller relative to the size of their large ocular globe (other large owls are known to have similar pecten proportions).  The vision in limited or almost no light during a laboratory study of a barred owl was found to be similar to that of other owls, including the long-eared owl (Asio otus) and the barn owl (Tyto alba).  The tarsi and toes are feathered up to the dark gray, black-tipped talons, but being more sparse and bristled in the southern races. On individuals of barred owls with bare sections of their toes, the toes are yellowish-gray in color.    The flight feathers are barred with whitish buff and brown while the tail is brown or grayish-brown with 4-5 whitish bars.  The mesoptile young of the barred owl are fluffy brownish-white with indistinct darker barring on head, back and mantle but quickly become juveniles which resemble adults but have less distinct markings (especially about the head and neck), more buff coloring overall, often some remnant down, pinkish skin and a pale blue green cere. Also the tail at this age may have as many as seven bands (though sometimes have four like adults). Full adult plumage is obtained via molt after about a year as well as adult bare part characteristics.    A study of tail molt in Washington showed that molt tends to occur relatively quickly and that young individuals are difficult to age by state of molt alone.  Southern barred owls tend to be darker and slightly smaller with less feathering on toes than northerly ones.  Rare captive and wild barred owl with albinism have been described and are pure white but tend to retain their brown eyes. 
The barred owl is a large species. The adult measures anywhere from 40 to 63 cm (16 to 25 in) in length while the wingspan may range from 96 to 125 cm (38 to 49 in).   The wing area (measured by square centimeter relative to the body mass) is quite intermediate amongst American owls, with the wing loading being lower than larger, but proportionately small-winged larger owls and even than some smaller owls but the barred has higher wing-loading than a number of smaller, often rather slenderly-build owls that have proportionately larger wings.  Wing-loading is related to hunting technique, with higher wing-loading owls typically hunting from a perch, with only a brief flight necessary to obtain food, whilst lower wing-loading owls often hunt their prey from active flight. Of these, barred and other Strix owls fall more so in the perch-hunting category.    As is the case in most owls, the various wing feathers of barred owls are uncharacteristic soft and bear a comb-like shape, which in turn renders their flight functionally silent during their hunts.  Like most birds of prey, the female is larger than the male barred owl, sometimes described as reverse sexual dimorphism (due to the fact that males average larger than females in most non-raptorial birds).  Among standard measurements, the wing chord of grown males varies from 303 to 340 mm (11.9 to 13.4 in), with an average from three sources of 326.2 mm (12.84 in), the tail may measure from 182 to 250 mm (7.2 to 9.8 in), with an average of 219.6 mm (8.65 in) and the culmen from the cere may measure from 22 to 27 mm (0.87 to 1.06 in), with an average of 24.3 mm (0.96 in).    Meanwhile for the female, the wing chord may range from 318 to 357 mm (12.5 to 14.1 in), averaging 335.8 mm (13.22 in), the tail from 204 to 257 mm (8.0 to 10.1 in), averaging 223.3 mm (8.79 in) and the culmen from the cere 20 to 30.7 mm (0.79 to 1.21 in), averaging 25.1 mm (0.99 in).    Sexual dimorphism is particularly pronounced in barred owls by body mass as males within a population are sometimes a third lighter in weight.   In the nominate subspecies (S. v. varia), average weights for males have been reported as 621.9 g (1.371 lb) (sample size 12), 632 g (1.393 lb) (sample size 20) and 681 g (1.501 lb) (sample size unknown) in three samples.    The weight range for adult males is known to vary from 468 to 812 g (1.032 to 1.790 lb).   The considerably larger female of the nominate subspecies has been reported to average 801 g (1.766 lb) (sample size 24), 872.6 g (1.924 lb) (sample size 14) and 909.5 g (2.005 lb) (sample size unknown).    Altogether, fully-grown female barred owls may weight from 610 to 1,150 g (1.34 to 2.54 lb).    In Baker Lake Basin in California (part of the “invasive” stretch of the range), 7 females weighed an average of 805 g (1.775 lb) while 8 males weighed an average of 663 g (1.462 lb). 
The barred owl is the only owl throughout the eastern part of the United States and most of the Midwest with its general characteristics: a large owl with a robust, rounded head and brown eyes, so confusion is unlikely in the core part of this species’ range. The great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) is larger and much heavier with prominent ear tufts, very different plumage coloring and pattern and yellow eyes.    The long-eared owl is much smaller and slimmer with differing markings, prominent ear-tufts and orangish eyes. In seldom cases, a very inexperienced person has mistaken the barred owl for these species, however.   On the fringes of its distribution (west, north and south), however, the barred owl may overlap slightly in range with other species from the Strix genus, which all share the same general form. A close cousin, the fulvous owl (Strix fulvescens) may range north into Mexico where the southernmost barred owls may persist, however so far as is known, their respective distributions are entirely and considerably allopatric. The fulvous owl is similar to a barred owl but is slightly smaller with richer, fulvous tones in plumage, cinnamon tail bands and a pale, plain facial disc without darker concentric lines.     Spotted owls, which now live alongside barred owls from southern British Columbia to northern California, are fairly similar looking as well but are too slightly smaller. In addition, spotted owls bear bold, dark spotting below, white spots about the head, neck and mantle instead of bars, a subtle cream brow on the facial disc and a darker, more richly brown, earthen tone overall.   The great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) is sympatric with barred owls from western Quebec to southeastern Alaska and share their range in many parts of the western United States as well as some of the northern Upper Midwest. The great grey species usually appears considerably larger than the barred owl (although there is considerable overlap in body mass) and much more solidly dark gray with a much larger, fairly bulbous head and relatively small yellow eyes.   The mottled owl (Ciccaba virgata) may or may not overlap with barred owls near the Mexico-Texas borderlands. The mottled can appear somewhat similar overall, with similar features and coloring. However, the mottled owl is rather smaller, with a darker facial disc (which in turn emphasize the white whiskers and brows) and has no bars on the upperbody. Younger mottled owls are somewhat rufous and much more richly and darkly colored than a barred owl.  
The barred owl is a powerful vocalist, with an array of calls that are considered “spectacular, loud and emphatic”.  Calls probably carry well over 0.8 km (0.50 mi).  Its usual call is a series of eight accented hoots ok-ok-ok-ok-ok-buhooh, or the “typical two-phrase hoot” with a downward pitch at the end.   The most common mnemonic device for remembering the call is "Who cooks for you, who cooks for you all."  Due to its best known call, the barred owl is sometimes colloquially referred to as Old Eight-Hooter.  At 80% of study posts in Virginia, barred owls responded to playback of this call.  A further call is the “ascending type” or the “ legato” call, a series of variable notes ending in oo-aw or hoo-aah.   At least two other variations on the legato/ascending call are known.  56% of studied owls in Virginia engaged in the ascending type call but 36% uttered only the closing notes.  The isolated hoo-aah, sometimes called the “inspection call”, was the most common song type in north Florida and the most likely to heard during daylight.  Several other calls, although some are not dissimilar variations on the main calls, are known.    Some of these vary into cackles, hoots, caws and gurgles, at times described as “sudden demonic laughter”, “cat-like screams” and “prolonged outbursts of cackling” and seem to be, amongst Strix species, an idiosyncrasy endemic to the barred owl.    Another call type is the “mumble”, a grumbling, slurred and subtle err-ERR-err, also an up-and-down “twitter” call at a high pitch.  When agitated, this species will make a buzzy, rasping hiss of about 3 three seconds every 10-30 seconds and click its beak together forcefully.  Females and juveniles beg with high scratching skreeechch notes.  The voice of the two sexes is similar but the female has a higher-pitched voice, with longer terminal notes.   87-94% of calls are diagnosable to sex per one study.  While calls are most common at night, the birds do call during the day as well, especially when provoked by human playback or imitation.  They are more responsive than any hawk in the east to playback of calls of their own species.  The barred owl is noisy in most seasons but peak vocalization times for barred owls tend to be between late January (i.e. Florida) and early April (i.e. Canada).    Two seasonal peaks in vocalizations, one right before breeding and another after the young have dispersed, was detected in Connecticut with peak vocalizations on nights with extensive cloud cover.  Peak times for vocalizations are between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM, with the least frequent vocalizations around mid-afternoon.  There seems to be no evidence of regional variation in song types, or dialects, in different regions of the southeastern United States (from east Texas to south Florida to North Carolina), likely due to extensive introgression while individual variation, recent signal evolution and local adaptations may also play a part.  84-87.5% of recorded calls can be used distinguish individuals, via the review of spectrograms. 
The barred owl is distributed throughout most of the eastern United States, as well as much of southern Canada.  They are found as far northeast as much of Nova Scotia (western two-third), New Brunswick and Sept-Îles, in much of Quebec, up to Lake Mistassini, and Ontario, up to Moosonee.      The barred owl has been recorded as ended up as far north as central Labrador, though the species is not yet confirmed to breed in the province.  The barred owl ranges in every part of the eastern United States continuously from northernmost Maine down throughout New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, much of the Midwest, the Southeast United States and all of Florida.   They are found to as far east without substantial gaps to the limits of western Minnesota, easternmost South Dakota, the southeastern corner of Nebraska, the eastern half roughly of Kansas, most of Oklahoma and east Texas to as far west as Cisco and Burnet.      Arguably and discontinuously from Texas, the species may range into central and southern Mexico but these populations are now often considered a separate species.   These initial parts of the range in the eastern and central stretches would be considered as where the species is “native”.   A wandering barred owl was once seen flying over Lake Michigan 48 km (30 mi) from the nearest land. 
The remaining parts of the range are considered where the barred owl introduced itself in the last century or so.   The historical lack of trees in the Great Plains presumably acted as a barrier to the range expansion, and recent increases in forests broke down this barrier.   Increases in forest distribution along the Missouri River and its tributaries provided barred owls with sufficient foraging habitat, protection from the weather, and concealment from avian predators to allow barred owls to move westward, initially along other forested river corridors (i.e. the Yellowstone and Musselshell). Decades later, increases in forests in the northern Great Plains allowed them to connect their eastern and western distributions across southern Canada.  These increases in forests were caused by European-American settlers via wildfire suppression as well as ceasing the fires historically set by Native Americans, and by increased tree-planting.   To a lesser degree this regional net forest increase was also caused by these settlers' extirpating American bison (Bison bison) and by overhunting elk (Cervus canadensis), deer ( Odocoileus spp.) and, in some areas, by extirpating North American beaver (Castor canadensis) and replacing native ungulates with livestock.  Increase in trees in the Great Plains is considered a main cause of the range expansions of many other species of birds  including western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis),   eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe),  eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),  blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),   brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),  red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),  and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus). 
Back in Canada, the Barred owls with range expansion now range through southern Manitoba (but for the southwest corner), a broad section of south-central Saskatchewan and east-central and nearly all of western Alberta, now up to High Level.       The barred owl has been present in Manitoba at least since 1886, Alberta since 1932 and in Saskatchewan since 1948.    However, a study in Alberta has shown that barred owls have likely been present for no less than 100 years.  This owl species currently ranges through much of British Columbia, where they have been expanding their range since at least 1943, including Vancouver Island and as far north as Fort St. John.    The barred owl has had a further northward expansion in the west to southeastern Alaska (i.e. Skagway to Ketchikan) and extreme southwestern Yukon. To date, the IUCN has not updated its species range map for the barred owl to reflect these new northerly records.    In the western United States they also range into northwestern Montana and northern Idaho.   Barred owls were first verified in southwest Montana in 1909 and in northwest Montana in 1921 (although reports of the species may date back to the 1870s) but not in Idaho until 1968.   Of unknown origin, Barred owls have been seen in Colorado since around the turn of the 20th century.   They range broadly in eastern and western Washington (reached by 1965) and western Oregon (reached by 1972) (mostly along the forested corridors hugging the montane areas of the Cascade, Olympic and Blue ranges), and northern California (reached by 1976), now down to the Redwood National Forest, the Sierra Nevadas and outer San Francisco.        
The habitat used by barred owl is largely old deciduous, mixed forests and, occasionally, coniferous forests.  Old growth forests are preferred due to more extensive potential nest sites, less lower branch density to impede hunting (and perhaps superior structural complexity to aid hunting), greater security from mobbing and perhaps greater thermoregulation.     They are often found in bottomland hardwood forests in the largest swath of the native breeding range, often (particularly from Virginia south and west) with deep, dark stands of oak, gum and cypress.   Secondary habitat, often used during foraging forays, in the south are often oak savanna or cabbage-palm (Sabal palmetto) areas.  Regardless of area, some variety of water is frequently present, including riparian areas or swampy ground.    Closed canopy forests were preferred in a study from Oklahoma (62.8% of habitat used), followed by fallow agricultural fields (10.6%), wetlands (8.1%) and open terrain (6.2%). The latter three were visited during hunting forays and wetlands and open terrain areas were not used outside of the breeding season.  Along the Atlantic coast area from New England to New Jersey, barred owls are often found in mixed swamps areas with cedars, seldom wandering to adjacent wetlands or farmland.   The species may be at home in wooded areas in mountainous regions.  More upland wooded habitats, often in mixed woods containing hemlock, alder, poplar, pine and oak, are typical in the northern part of the range.   A study in northern New Jersey found at least 15 tree species of both conifer and deciduous trees were routinely used for differing purposes.  In Michigan, barred owl habitat usually consists largely of some combination of hemlock and maple trees, with mixed forest usage being use disproportionately to its prevalence in the environment.  Large oak stands were preferred in Minnesota, a bit ahead of mixed forest and far ahead of white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) swamps and other habitat types, which were either too dense, too open or had too few attractive nesting sites.  
Barred owls are not confined to extensive forest, also dwelling extensively in semi-open wooded areas, locally in large parks with mature trees and in forest adjacent regions recently logged.  Recent studies show suburban neighborhoods can be ideal habitat for barred owls and the species may be considered a local synanthrope.  Using transmitters, scientists found that some regional populations, such as in Charlotte, North Carolina, increased faster in the suburban settings than in old growth forest. A factor of this suburban success may be easily accessible rodent prey in such settings. However, for breeding and roosting needs, this species needs at least some large trees and can be locally absent in some urban areas for this reason. The increased offspring offset the death rate due to impacts from cars, other types of collisions and disease.  Similarly, in Piedmont, South Carolina, productivity of the owls was higher in suburban areas and they comprised 41% of the territories of the local owls but various sorts of anthropogenic mortality were seemingly higher.  In suburban areas of Ohio barred owls 41.4% of range was forested, 29.8% was low-density residential areas and pasture less than 15%.  On the other hand, studies from the Northeastern United States, such as in New Jersey, found barred owls breeding mainly in plots of old-growth woodlands, and rarely successfully breeding in peri-urban areas, in part because of competitive and predatory displacement by great horned owls.   Furthermore, a study in North Carolina showed most studied barred owls appear to usually favor areas with at least 86 to 370 ha (210 to 910 acres) on wooded areas but did not seem to be effected by the presence of roadways. 
In the Pacific Northwest, they can quite adaptive to secondary forests.  On the other hand, in Ontario where the barred owl is “native”, secondary forest seemed to be largely avoided per a study.  In the recent western part of the range, barred owls often dwell in mixed wood areas, often where there are lowland stands of balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and white spruce (Picea glauca), occasionally but not commonly in pure conifer boreal stands.     Barred owls in California preferred stands of red alder (Alnus rubra) and appeared to avoid areas with higher densities of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus).  More so confined to inland areas, i.e. eastern Washington, Idaho, Manitoba and Montana, they prefer Douglas fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), burr oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and western larch (Larix occidentalis).      In north-central Alberta, the use of old growth forest was far more prevalent than its occurrence in the wild.  In the Cascades Range of Washington, barred owls usually dwelled in areas with more grand firs (Abies grandis), taller and more diverse tree heights, more enclosed canopies, with higher numbers of trees per acre and less ground cover.  In Saskatchewan, barred owls preferred areas with a minimum of 66% forest cover. 
The barred owl was first decreased by Benjamin Smith Barton, a Philadelphia physician as well as scientist and naturalist, in 1799, so named due to the varied directions the dusky markings take on their underside.  The barred owl is a member of the wood-owl genus Strix, part of the typical owl family Strigidae, which contains all species of owl other than the barn owls. Conservatively, about 18 species are currently represented in this Strix genus, typically being medium to large sized owls, characteristically round-headed and lacking ear tufts, which acclimate to living in forested parts of various climatic zones.   Four owls native to the neotropics are sometimes additionally included with the Strix genus though some authors include these in a separate but related genus, Ciccaba.   Despite the diversity of Strix species in the Americas, genetic and fossil evidence indicates that the genus originated in Eurasia.    Some authors considered that the barred owl was derived from or even conspecific with the Ural owl (Strix uralensis) although it is unlikely that there was ever a continuous population between eastern Asia and the North America Strix populations due to their requirement for mature forests (and there is much that separates the Ural species from barred owls in form, markings, voice and some aspects of ecology).   It should not be ruled out however, that the Ural owl and its more numerous and well-known cousin, the tawny owl (Strix aluco), share a common ancestor with the American quadrant of northerly Strix species, with a divergence point no more recent than the early Pleistocene era.  The barred owl is roughly intermediate in size between the larger Ural and the smaller tawny owl, but the structural features of its relatively short and decurved claws more so resemble the tawny species as does their dietary and habitat ecology.  The spotted owl has been hypothesized to be within a superspecies with the barred owl.  However, genetic testing reveals very early divergence (likely at or near their ancestor’s entry to North America) between spotted and barred owls.  A fossil species once called Strix brea from the early Pleistocene in California does little to resolve the ancestry of modern species given its ambiguous relation to any living Strix. The fossil species was larger (more similar in size and slenderness to the great grey owl albeit slightly smaller skulled and geographically isolated from that species) and longer-legged than either the spotted and barred owls, and is now considered to be in a separate genus, Oraristrix.   Pleistocene era fossils of probable barred owls are known from Florida, Tennessee and Ontario.    Despite being previously considered cousins of the barred owl, there is much uncertainty about the relations of three neotropical species of Strix: the rusty-barred owl (Strix hylophila), the rufous-legged owl (Strix rufipes) and the Chaco owl (Strix chacoensis), and based on voice and distribution it seems improbable that they’d be closely related to the barred owl.  
Ambiguities continue as to the relation of barred owls to two Mexican and Central American owls that are clearly very similar to the barred species. One is the fulvous owl, which has been often considered conspecific and the other is the cinereous owl (Strix sartorii) which until very recently been considered a barred owl subspecies.     The fulvous owl is considerably geographically isolated from any barred owl population and moreover has a quite different voice.   The cinereous owl is more similar in plumage to a barred owl, albeit with cooler, less brown coloring, darker, bolder streaking and a typically paler facial disc. The cinereous species’ song resembles a more sonorous, deeper version of the fulvous owl song and, in both species, the song is quite different from that of the barred owl.  While the fulvous is a slightly smaller owl (averaging up to 20% smaller than northern barred owls) than the barred, the cinereous seems to be the second largest American species of Strix (after the great grey owl) and is a larger (estimated mean weights of the two sexes 878 and 1,113 g (1.936 and 2.454 lb), respectively) and appreciably larger footed predator than the barred owl.   A genetic study utilizing haplotypes showed that the cinereous owl is extremely divergent from the barred owl, puzzlingly with a more pronounced genetic distance from the barred than the more separated and southerly fulvous owl. The fulvous bore a 4.5% mean genetic distance from the barred species. In summation, the authors strongly advocated that each the barred, fulvous and cinereous be treated as separate species.  The fulvous owl is usually considered distinct in modern accounts while the cinereous is recognized by the International Ornithologists' Union but not by the American Ornithological Society.  
The subspecies of the barred owl vary mostly by region, with slight to moderate variation by coloring, size and extent of feathering on the toes. Although several have been described in the past, the barred owl may include only three subspecies, subsequent to the separation of the fulvous and cinereous forms.   
- S. v. varia (Barton, 1799)- The northern barred owl. This race lives throughout the Northeastern United States and the Upper Midwest, ranging far as south as Oklahoma, the Carolinas and northern Georgia. It is also considered to comprise all western “invader” birds found as far west as California and British Columbia.   However, genetic study of westerly birds show a substantial isolation, possibly up to the subspecific level, of the western and eastern populations of the northern owls, with an estimated divergence of around 7,000 years, perhaps indicating an unknown history of the species in remote forests of northern and central Canada (far west of what was considered their original distribution) that radiated more recently to comprise the western populations.  This race is generally the typical mid gray-brown variety of barred owl.  However, a paler variation with very washed out markings and a more pure whitish base color is known (in eastern Canada such as Quebec), formerly considered a race S. v. albescens, as well as darker and browner variation in northern Minnesota (formerly S. v. brunnescens).   This race is fairly large (the largest race on average with the probable separation of the cinereous owl) but can show considerable regional size variation.  The wing chord and tail length may measure from 312 to 340 mm (12.3 to 13.4 in) and 215 to 230 mm (8.5 to 9.1 in) in males and 320 to 352 mm (12.6 to 13.9 in) and 224 to 257 mm (8.8 to 10.1 in) in females.    One nominate bird had a tarsus length of 63.5 mm (2.50 in) and the culmen from the cere may measure 23.5 to 30 mm (0.93 to 1.18 in).  Most known published weights, including the lightest and heaviest known barred owls, have been recorded for the northern barred owl subspecies.   
- S. v. georgica ( Latham, 1801)- The southern barred owl or, alternately, the Florida barred owl. This subspecies is found in southern North Carolina closer to the coast along to broadly through Georgia and all of Florida.    A form called S. v. sablei, from the isle of Sanibel, Florida, is not well-described and probably not distinct.  This race is similar to the nominate northern subspecies but averages a slightly darker and warmer brown on the back as well as about the underside barring and streaking. However, it differs from the nominate most strongly by its mostly bare toes. Although the race is slightly smaller on average than the nominate subspecies, the average difference is only about 3%. Nonetheless, this is still the smallest of the three subspecies on average.   Known wing chord lengths can vary from 315 to 357 mm (12.4 to 14.1 in). Tail length is 205 to 231 mm (8.1 to 9.1 in) and the bill from the cere is 23 to 28 mm (0.91 to 1.10 in).    Males in Florida were found to weigh from 681 to 800 g (1.501 to 1.764 lb), with averages in two samples of 718 and 744 g (1.583 and 1.640 lb), while two females weighed 850 and 875 g (1.874 and 1.929 lb), respectively. It therefore appears to show less pronounced sexual dimorphism than the northern barred owl race. 
- S. v. helveola ( Bangs, 1899)- The Texas barred owl. Comprises most barred owls found in Texas (although any owls from north Texas are from the nominate subspecies).  The distributional range is considered to range as far north as Lee county, east to Chambers county, west to Kerr county and south to Nueces county but some records show they range down to adjacent lowlands of Mexico.     In this race, the ground coloration tends to pale gingery-cream and the back and head tend to be a pale brown ranging into an almost cinnamon color.  The toes can vary from rather bare to slightly bristled.  This race is similar to other barred owls in size, perhaps averaging marginally smaller than those in the nominate race, but its bill and feet are larger on average than the preceding two races.   The wing chord measures 330 to 355 mm (13.0 to 14.0 in) while the tail may measure 210 to 254 mm (8.3 to 10.0 in) and the culmen from the cere around 28 mm (1.1 in). 
The barred owl like most owls is largely adapted to nocturnality.  Between 5:00 am and 8:00 pm, juvenile barred owls were recorded to sleep an average of 28% of each hour.  Peak times in Minnesota were found to be right after sunset and just before dawn.  Nonetheless, they are not as fully nocturnal as many owls and rank around 6th amongst 19 regular North American owl species for the regularity of their activity outside of nightfall, especially in particular circumstances such as when a rival or a human impersonator is emitting barred owls calls or whilst hunting. Often daytime activity tends to be early in the morning or around dusk but potentially at any time ( overcast days being preferred).     In Juneau, Alaska, the barred owl when compared in a study to other owl species was considered “non-linear” in activity, with the peak discernable recorded activity time based on vocalization being right at sunset rather than after it.  This species often spends the daytime hidden away in dense foliage of a tree, often at minimum 5 m (16 ft) above the ground, but sometimes also roosts in branch close to a broad trunk or in a natural tree hollow.   Roost tree heights in Minnesota was typically 8 to 12 m (26 to 39 ft) while, in Illinois, they were up to 9 m (30 ft).   Recent fledged owls sometimes roost in tall grass, usually after falling from the nest tree.  Roost site selection may be partially dictated by thermoregulation, as in spotted owls, with shadier roosts likely to mitigate heat stress.  They seldom rely on camouflage, instead often flying at the least disturbance and not allowing close approaches, making them potential difficult to observe.  Yet, on the other hand, they can be surprisingly tame and seemingly curious of people in the wild; further they are considered “as mild and engaging” as a predator can be.  Barred owls are regularly subject to mobbing by small birds, from several small passerines to corvids and woodpeckers, and mammals when discovered by them during the daytime, and such situations may lead to them being attacked by diurnal birds of prey.    There are some records of barred owls engaging in allopreening, presumably between pairs, with each other in the wild.   They are skilled and silent fliers and frequently use routine forest flyways with open understory and low branch densities. 
Like most species of owl in the Strix genus, the barred owl tends to be highly territorial regardless of the time of year.     The territories are claimed by singing from different perches, often near the perimeter of its perceived home range. The boundaries are almost always well-maintained by barred owls and are generally stable from year to year and even generation to generation.  Territory sizes have been determined via radiotelemetry.  The average territory size of 13 in Minnesota was 273 ha (670 acres), of 7 in Michigan it was 282 ha (700 acres) and of 10 in Wisconsin was 337.9 ha (835 acres).    Another Minnesota study found pairs to occupy a mean of about 226 ha (560 acres) in mixed hardwood-conifer woods.  Pairs in an Oklahoma study were reportedly found every 110 to 165 ha (270 to 410 acres).  The mean territory size from 10 studies were estimated from throughout the range. In this study, the breeding season mean area was calculated at 256.7 ha (634 acres) in males and 297.8 ha (736 acres) in females; whereas the means in nonbreeding season were 900.4 ha (2,225 acres) in males and 536.2 ha (1,325 acres) in females. Overall, the annual mean home range for males was 782 ha (1,930 acres) and for females was 538.7 ha (1,331 acres).  The breeding range’s mean home size in Washington was 321 ha (790 acres), while it was 971 ha (2,400 acres) in the non-breeding season.  When territorial boundaries move, it is often correlated to reduced food supplies.   The ranges of pairs overlaps in the breeding season, at 87-95% range overlap, but decreases down to 45% after hatching.  In a Florida study of barred owls, territorial responses, including several duets, by a pair were found to be provoked by researchers playing calls of both “stranger” owls and recordings of owls that were neighbors to the pair being tested.  The aggressive response even to known neighbors in this study is unusual.  In tawny owls in a study from Italy, for instance, they responded mildly or not at all to the calls of neighboring tawny owls known to them but with great aggression to the calls of “stranger” owls.  Due to its rather stolidly territorial nature, the barred owl is not normally a migratory species.  Claims in the past of “rather impressive” flights in New England in the past were lacking in verifiable details.  Of 158 banded recoveries in the northern part of the range, movements during winter were found to cover no further than 10 km (6.2 mi), while all those recovered in Saskatchewan and Alberta scarcely moved at all.    There is little to no evidence of nomadic behavior as has been recorded in several other owls in the north.  
Barred owls are opportunistic predators of the woodlands. Like the tawny owl, the barred owl usually hunts from a perch. During hunting efforts, they glide briefly from perch to perch until prey is detected.   Barred owl has incredibly large eyes that capture as much light as possible, allowing for better night vision.  Attacks may be carried out merely 6 to 10 m (20 to 33 ft) away from the prey due to the effectiveness of the silencing wing feathers.  The barred owl, especially compared to the predominantly arboreal prey of the spotted owl, usually prefers to target small animals that are terrestrial.  However, barred owls will also flush and capture night-roosting birds and capture bats on the wing as well.  Daytime hunting has been reported several times, although peak hunting time is typically shortly after sunset.     Although they usually hunt within woodlands, they not infrequently hunt in open terrain, more typical of the hunting areas of a bird like the long-eared owl.  Cases of snow-plunging have known been verified for barred owls, allowing them to capture prey like voles in subnivean zones that they use as hidden snow tunnels during winter, a hunting method once though particular to great grey owls.  While hunting squirrels in the Foothill Model Forest of Alberta, barred owls were seen to make several passes before succeeding.  Hunting on the ground is usually done to obtain foods such as invertebrates or amphibians.   These owls may wade into water to capture fish and may do an unusual amount of aquatic, for any Strix species or North American owl, foraging via wading into shallows.   In lab settings, a barred owl was found to be able to survive on a lower caloric value than usual by increasing the efficiency of digestion of their scanty meals through a longer digestion time, which is amongst owls probably not unique to this species.  Due its relatively modest foot size, it does not usually take particularly large prey.  However, owls in general have proportionately larger feet and more powerful grips than similarly-sized diurnal raptors, while the physiology of the daytime raptors differs. While the mechanism of the killing feet overlap, owls kill mainly with constriction and sacrifice velocity with their physiology while diurnal raptors have higher velocity and kill mainly by trauma inflicted by their enlarged talons.  A majority of prey of barred owls is eaten outright but, with large prey, the barred owl may eat the head first and then return to consume the remainder of the body.  Cases of owls of any variety scavenging on carrion are generally rare, but at least three instances of carrion-feeding by barred owls have been observed, more recently eating deer and squirrel roadkills on a remote camera in North Carolina.   The pellet of the barred owl averages about 3.5 cm (1.4 in) in diameter and 7.2 cm (2.8 in) in length. 
The barred owl has been known to consume a diversity of animals from different taxonomic classes. Primarily, these owls live off of small mammals.   Other vertebrates are rarely neglected though, especially birds and amphibians but also occasionally reptiles and fish. For an owl its size, the barred owl also consumes a large amount of arthropods and other invertebrates.      One study from a wide swath of the range found that among 2234 accrued prey items, 76% were mammals, 15.8% were invertebrates, 5.8% were birds and 2.5% were other vertebrates.  In four other studies from different parts of the distribution, the mean balance of mammals in diet was around 64.9%, birds at around 13.4%, invertebrates at around 11.4% and different classes of vertebrates (mostly amphibians) at around 10.3%.      A compilation study that included a total of 7077 prey items using all metholodigies, 71.9% were mammals, 9.5% were birds, 0.6% reptiles, 6% amphibians, 1.89% fish, 1% earthworms, 0.2% gastropods, 6.5% insects and 2.4% crayfish.  Barred owls tend to focus on fairly small-sized prey, although are capable of attacking larger than usual prey in infrequent cases.   The mean size of prey taken is seldom estimated in the barred owls’ eastern range, although one study estimated mean size of prey in the general east was 33.5 g (1.18 oz).  Many more studies have estimated mean prey masses in westerly areas of sympatry with spotted owls to understand how their diets may conflict.  Different studies from the west (mainly Washington and Oregon) have variously estimated the mean prey sizes for barred owls at 47.7 g (1.68 oz), 56.1 g (1.98 oz), 60.2 g (2.12 oz), 103.5 g (3.65 oz) and 123.6 g (4.36 oz).    
The predominant small mammal available in forest and woodland edge are generally small rodents, so the barred owl like other Strix owls most often relies on rodents as the primary type of food.  51.5% of 7077 prey items from throughout the range were rodents.  Preferred rodents to be taken are voles, mice of the genus Peromyscus and assorted rats, including non-native Rattus species as well as unrelated native types like cotton rats, rice rats and woodrats. These all share with barred owls a penchance for nocturnality and crepuscular habits (although many voles are more correctly considered cathemeral)      While during other seasons, the diet of barred owls can be fairly diverse, the winter diet may be almost wholly confined to rodents (i.e. mammals comprising about 98.4% of the all known winter diets).  This was the case in winter in Montana, where 97.6% of 1153 prey items were montane voles (Microtus montanus), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) with a possible slight mixture of other voles.  The diet of barred owls in a much smaller study near Urbana, Illinois during winter was less homogenous but still led by rodents, especially the meadow vole (32.3%) and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (23.5%).  A winter food study in Essex County, New Jersey found that among 118 prey items, meadow voles comprised a great majority of the prey, at 91.5% of the balance.  An unusual lack of diversity in barred owl pellets was found in several years of possibly aseasonal study in Ann Arbor, Michigan where of 777 prey items, 83.3% were meadow voles.  At Edwin S. George Preserve near the University of Michigan, the summer diet was also heavily rodent based, as among 146 prey items 37.9% were white-footed mice, 22.6% were southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) and 6.84% were meadow voles.  In a somewhat larger Michigan study, the North American deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), lead the prey at 34.9% of 321 prey items.  In Minnesota, the barred owl was counted as one of the leading causes of mortality of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster).  Studies of the barred owl diet in 6 urban metropolitan areas of British Columbia found that the diet was dominated by young rats of the invasive Rattus genus, comprising 52.8% of 688 prey items, well ahead of native Townsend's voles (Microtus townsendii), which were secondary at 19.2% of the diet. The average weight rats taken by owls were clearly juveniles, estimated to average 103 g (3.6 oz), although several could be anywhere from infant rat to adult rat sizes, i.e. about 25 to 300 g (0.88 to 10.58 oz).  The mean size of black rats (Rattus rattus) taken in Oregon was 250 g (8.8 oz), indicating that here large adults of this species were selected.  Beyond the typical more meadow-dwelling voles and woodland edge-dwelling native mice, larger and more forest dwelling rodents of different varieties can be of variable import.   Numerous woodrat species may be taken and may provide a hearty meal to a barred owl, at a mean body mass when taken (in Oregon) of 285 g (10.1 oz) for unidentified species.     In different areas, barred owls may regularly hunt the diverse members of the squirrel family, despite their general penchance for diurnality. Smaller squirrel varieties are usually focused on when hunted as supplement prey, such as chipmunks, averaging about 83 g (2.9 oz) among the different species they prey upon, and pine squirrels, which average about twice as large as chipmunks.     Usually juvenile specimens are focused on when taking the larger Sciurus tree squirrels, at least in summer, but presumably a mixture of yearling and/or adult Sciurus will be taken during winter.    The mean weight of western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus) taken during the breeding season in Oregon was 450 g (16 oz), against a mean adult weight of around 770 g (1.70 lb).   The issue of temporal activities is less pertinent to the predator of flying squirrels, which are nocturnal. All studies of the diet of barred owls in Pacific Northwest show the importance of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) to their diet. This flying squirrel was found to comprise from about 10.9% to 20% of the diet of barred owls (either as the most or second most important prey species) and, with a mean weight of 134 g (4.7 oz) when taken, they comprised up to 25.6% of the food biomass for this owl species.    In Green Ridge State Forest in Maryland, although not numerically the most important prey family compared to unidentified cricetids and shrews, the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) was the most often identified prey species for barred owls.  Beyond the aforementioned rodent prey, more infrequently rodent prey can including various other crecetid rodents, pocket gophers, mountain beavers (Aplodontia rufa) (average weight when taken of up to 550 g (1.21 lb)) and jumping mice.     The largest known rodent prey of barred owls are adult muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), which were estimated to weigh 1,169 g (2.577 lb) when taken. 
The other primary mammalian prey types are the shrews and the moles. At least a dozen species of shrew and most North American species of mole are known as prey of the barred owl.        12.8% of 7077 total prey items from across the range were shrews or moles.  A small sample of prey in Michigan was led by the very small masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), which weighs around 4 g (0.14 oz), at 25% of 34 prey items.  A much larger shrew, the northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), at around 21 g (0.74 oz), was the leading prey in Glenwood, Minnesota at 35.8% of 81 prey items.  This prey species also is taken quite regularly in several other parts of the range, as well as a closely-related species.     Assorted other shrew species and the shrew-like, tiny mole, the American shrew mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii) (the smallest of the world’s moles) are regular supplement prey elsewhere, especially in the Pacific Northwest.     The most frequently taken single prey species through the Pacific Northwest, at 11.8% of 4299 total prey items of barred owls, was the 56 g (2.0 oz) coast mole (Scapanus orarius).  Usually, moles are secondary if relatively hearty prey elsewhere in the range.   Secondary prey that is heartier still can include several species of cottontail rabbits.      3.2% of 7077 prey items from across the range for barred owls were rabbits or hares.  As for the often sympatric eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) , juveniles were exclusively taken in summer in Wisconsin but presumably fully-grown ones were taken in large numbers during winter in Illinois, where they were the third most recorded prey species at 14.4% of the balance.   Even larger prey (perhaps the largest verifiable prey of all for barred owls) is the regularly taken snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). The mean weights of these hares taken by barred owls in the Pacific Northwest was estimated at 1,000 to 1,200 g (2.2 to 2.6 lb) but the largest hare specimens killed by the barred owls were estimated to weigh about 1,400 g (3.1 lb).   
Bats are infrequently reported as prey in most of the range but an unusually close association was detected in Valdosta, Georgia, where most of the prey, 65% of pellet contents and 37 total bats, were southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius).    A study of bats foraging in response to playback of barred, eastern screech- and great horned owl calls shows that they did not alter their foraging behavior, indicating that they do not view owls as a considerable threat.  Other mammalian prey is seldom reported. Any of the three commoner species of small weasels are certain to be occasionally vulnerable to barred owls.   Larger cousins of weasels are sometimes perhaps taken as well. American mink (Neovison vison), which are around the same adult weight as a barred owl, have been known to be taken alive, although in Wisconsin only a “small mink” was reportedly taken.   Barred owls are also known predators of both the eastern spotted (Spilogale putorius) and the western spotted skunks (Spilogale gracilis), the latter estimated to weigh 606 g (1.336 lb) when taken.   Much larger mammals are sometimes recorded in the foods of barred owls, but there are few details known about the age, condition or circumstances (i.e. they may have been consumed as carrion or, perhaps more likely, young or infirm specimens were taken).   Some such prey species recorded have included the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) , the North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) , the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)  and the domestic cat (Felis catus) . Adults of all these species are known to count amongst the prey of great horned owls which is better suited than barred owls to take particularly large prey given its powerful morphology.  
Avian prey is taken throughout the range, though is usually quite secondary in import after mammals. The maximum known representation of bird prey in a barred owl food study was 25.1% in Alberta, meaning that they augment their diet less heavily with bird prey than their near equivalent in Europe, the tawny owl.    No specific variety of bird is subject to the most frequent predation by barred owls and birds are the most diverse class in these owl’s prey spectrum, with more than 100 species of bird known to be hunted.     About 60% of bird species in the prey spectrum and nearly 54% of the frequency (in 7077 prey items) amongst birds known to be hunted are passerines, which are generally small, active and diurnal denizens that predominate among the species composition of the woodlands inhabited by barred owls.   Medium-sized passerines in particular may be slightly preferred, with a wide array of thrushes, jays and icterids hunted. Common birds like the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are taken fairly regularly when opportuned upon.     Smaller passerines, often around the same size as the mice and voles popular in the diet, are also regularly reported as prey.  Conspicuous nesting sites of barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) and purple martin (Progne subis) on manmade structures and objects were revealed via video-monitoring to suffer heavy predated by barred owls. In the case of the barn swallows, all ages of swallow as well as possibly eggs were eaten. 65 of 95 monitoring barn swallow nests were depredated by owls over a 3 year period.   The muddy bank nests of cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) are also vulnerable to barred owls, while other swallow species are known to be opportunistically taken.   In more enclosed wooded areas, radio-tagging and video-monitoring of various passerines nests as well as examinations of owl pellets has shed light on the relationship of barred owls with these potential prey resources. Not only was the barred owl found to be a surprisingly routine predator at woodland passerine nests, but that an unexpected bulk of the acts of predation in studies from Missouri and Illinois were carried out during the daytime. Many different forest bird species (most frequently in Missouri and Illinois on acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) and indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea)) were thusly hunted. These studies indicated that the barred owl may snatch passerines of any age, but recent fledglings are taken preferentially due to their often more conspicuous behavior and lacking ability for flighted escape. In Minnesota, about 62% of studied hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) fledglings were taken per one study, with all thrush that nested in the 50 m (160 ft) radius of the barred owl’s nests failing to produce any young. A similarly high rate of local determent by barred owls has been found for other woodland thrushes like the veery (Catharus fuscescens), the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and the varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), with the additional finding that pre-dawn singing by certain thrushes, when their escape abilities are dulled by the dim light, endangers them to barred owl ambushes.      Forest birds seem to recognize the barred owl as a threat, with mobbing behavior evoked easily by playing recordings of their calls in the daytime. 
A wide diversity of bird prey may be occasionally hunted by barred owls in different circumstances. Smaller or mid-sized bird prey species known have including different species, though usually a relatively low species diversity and in low numbers, beyond swallows and thrushes of tyrant flycatchers, vireos, chickadees, wrens, mimids, tanagers, other cardinalids and finches.       Somewhat higher diversity of species are known from the sparrow and warbler families.          Birds down to the size of the calliope hummingbird (Selasphorus calliope), North America’s smallest hummingbird at 2.7 g (0.095 oz), may be taken by barred owls.   At the opposite end of passerine prey for barred owls, this species will sometimes take all ages of the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) from very young nestlings to adults.    Numerous non-passerine birds are also taken, though seldom in great numbers and of low known species diversity.  One exceptional family is the woodpeckers, which are probably so widely taken because of their generally overlapping habitat preferences with those of barred owls. Several species of woodpecker are preyed upon almost throughout the range, including at least a half dozen in Oregon alone, from the smallest to the largest extant woodpeckers in North America.    Other small-to-medium-sized bird species known as prey for barred owls are: mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) , northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) , grey partridge (Perdix perdix) , rock dove (Columba livia) & band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata) , mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) , purple gallinule (Porphyrio martinicus) , killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) , American woodcock (Scolopax minor) , least tern (Sternula antillarum) , snowy egret (Egretta thula) , cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis)  and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) . The largest avian prey for barred owls are common ostriches. Although they take many chicks of gamebirds, adults of these species are vulnerable as well.  In many areas, the ruffed grouse (Bonsana umbellus) are not infrequently taken, comprising up to nearly 6% of prey items in Alberta. In Oregon, the weights estimated for ruffed grouse taken by barred owls varied enormously, from small chicks, estimated at 25 g (0.88 oz), to adults weighing about 576 g (1.270 lb). Broader study in the Pacific Northwest indicated that adult ruffed grouse were mainly taken.     Barred owls are also known to take adult spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis), of about the same size as the ruffed grouse, as well as much larger species including the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and the sooty grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus), the latter estimated to average 1,050 g (2.31 lb) when taken.    Barred owls are also known to be predators of the young of other larger birds such as the American white ibis (Eudocimus albus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).  
Barred owl predation on reptiles is widely reported but they seldom take large numbers in any given area.  Most reported instances of such captures are of various small lizards, often of skinks in the genus Plestiodon most often from the Midwest to the western parts of the range.     Several reported instances of barred owls hunting snakes are also known, but they are perhaps even more seldomly preyed upon than lizards.   More than a half dozen snake species are known to be captured, several of which are harmless snakes.    The estimated body mass of black racer (Coluber constrictor) taken in Oregon was only 77 g (2.7 oz), well under their mean mature size.  However, consumption or predation on dangerous pit vipers, such as timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) and copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix), by barred owls has been reported, although it is not known whether these are taken as adults.    Rarer still is barred owl predation on turtles.  Predation by this species was reported upon a very young river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), which had a carapace width of only 31.4 mm (1.24 in), as well as on juvenile gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and apparently diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin).    Much more characteristic than any reptilian prey are amphibians, with both various types of frogs and their kin and salamanders and theirs reported in this owl’s foods.   Amphibians were more considerably more popular in the diet in western part of range, comprising 10.5% of known studies against 4.4% in the east.  In total, well over 20 amphibian species have been identified in the foods of barred owls and amphibians collectively can make up to 24.5% of the local diet (as was reported in Alberta).    While salamanders and newts are probably often visually discerned while scanning the forest floor, many frogs are probably hunted down auditorily during their crepuscular choruses.   Amphibians are taken almost entirely during the breeding season, as they become unavailable to barred owls during the winter months.   Most reported amphibian prey in Oregon were unidentified “medium-sized salamanders”, estimated to average 14 g (0.49 oz).  The smallest salamander hunted may be the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), which averages about 0.5 g (0.018 oz) (thus perhaps the smallest barred owl vertebrate prey), to the greater siren (Siren lacertina) which averages about 74.9 g (2.64 oz) but is capable of reaching weights of more than 700 g (1.5 lb)}.     A diversity of frog sizes may be taken, varying potentially in size from spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), which average around 4 g (0.14 oz), to American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), which average around in mature bullfrogs 430 g (15 oz).   A notable act of successful predation was carried out by a barred owl on a rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), which contains toxins that are often deadly to predators. Apparently, the owl was able to survive after consuming the newt.  The rarest variety of vertebrate prey to barred owls are fish.  However, there are several accrued accounts of fishing by these owls, including older accounts of barred owls coming to ice holes made by human fishermen and more recent accounts of possibly routine fishing by the owls on the St. Johns River in Florida, in the latter case utilizing a fishing dock as a hunting perch.   At least five species of fish have been identified in the foods of barred owls, including fairly large fish like the brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) and the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).     An usual amount of fish were found in studies from Missouri in some years, up to 8.4%, but in several years none were found. 
The balance of assorted invertebrates in the diet of barred owls can be quite high. Although many of those found in pellets are unidentified to species, nearly 40 species of invertebrates have been found in their foods.    Broad studies indicate arthropods (including millipedes and spiders but predominantly insects) in general comprise up to about 16% of the barred owl’s foods.   When hunting insects, barred owls most often prefer ground-based beetles. In Oregon, 11.7% of the diet was assorted beetles (14 species were identified), being somewhat more numerous among 3686 prey items than other non-rodent prey orders.  However, some insects prey such as luna moth (Actias luna), eastern tiger swallowtail (Papilio glaucus) and green darner (Anax junius) are presumably hawked on the wing around dawn and dusk.    It is known that barred owls will sometimes come hunt nearby manmade light sources and campfires, flying out from the perch to quickly capture flying insects that were attracted to them.   Of 123 prey items found in southern Manitoba, flighted Sphinx moths and flightless scarab beetles each comprised 7% (most of the remaining balance being unidentified mammals and birds).  Crayfish of at least four identified species are another widely taken type of invertebrate, often presumably snatched up by barred owls from shallow waterways.      Crayfish seem to be exclusively taken in the east and Midwest, areas where they comprised 3.4% of all known food studies, and none at all were recorded in the western part of the range.  In Missouri, annually up to 31.1% (though, in some years, 0%) of the diet was comprised by crayfish.  Several cases as well are known of barred owls feeding off of snails and slugs, the latter especially in the Pacific Northwest.   In cases where they take white-lipped snails (Cepaea hortensis), they appear to routinely crush the shells of this prey.   Another snail, the Pacific sideband (Monadenia fidelis), was surprisingly often present in the foods in Oregon as at least 135 taken.  Beyond slugs, other “soft” invertebrates are sometimes hunted, especially earthworms. Earthworms were most prominent in the foods of barred owls in Nova Scotia, where 27.6% of 186 video-monitored prey deliveries in Nova Scotia were worms, in fact the most regularly delivered of all prey types there.  
The barred owl overlaps in range with multiple other predators of similar prey species with the most overlap, going on temporal activity, likely to be with other owls. Of the owls in North America about three-quarters of the species are reliant on similar small mammal prey, usually rodents, with a mixture of other prey genera as supplements.  Other than its ecology where it today co-exists with spotted owls, however, there is some level of niche differentiation from a majority of sympatric owls.  In the eastern forest biome, the barred owl is the only large owl species to dwell mainly in continuous forest areas.    While many of the owls sympatric with barred owls over the lion’s share of their eastern and Midwestern range share a preference for hole-nesting, smaller hole-nesting owls usually prefer different habitats, such as the open country-dwelling barn owl (Tyto alba) and the screech-owls which usually in North America dwell at the interface of forest and open habitats.   Both North American species in the Aegolius owl genus are forest-dwelling cavity nesters but are, of course, much smaller and are at entirely different trophic levels.    A singular diurnal raptorial species that mirrors the barred owl at nearly all ecological levels, is the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Both species have similar distributions, habitat preferences and somewhat similar dietary habits and trophic level. They may considered as nearly nocturnal and diurnal ecological equivalents.   In multiple parts of the range, including southwestern Ohio, North Carolina and northern Michigan, the paralleling habitat usage and nesting behavior of the barred owl and red-shouldered hawk has been noted. One of the few respects in which their habitat usage differs is that the barred owl is more adaptive to nesting in suburban areas if they have old growth trees that provide plentiful tree hollows whereas the red-shoulders tend to avoid suburban areas whilst nesting. During the winter, on the contrary, red-shoulders may acclimate favorably to suburban areas while the barred owls seldom alter their range and remain more or less constrained to the stands they used during nesting.    The red-shouldered hawk averages somewhat smaller and has a more limited prey spectrum than barred owls, but probably goes after dangerous prey such as snakes quite a bit more regularly.    Multiple occasions are recorded where the barred owl and red-shouldered hawk have nested in the same area, often within the same grove of trees, remarkably with little to no conflicts.   At least one nest was found including eggs from both species.  When nesting near other hawks, like red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperii), the relationship tends to be much more contentious between hawk and owl despite barreds sometimes sharing space or using the old nests of these hawks.  A wing-clapping display by a pair of barred owls was recorded during antagonistic encounters in Manitoba with a pair of broad-winged hawks (Buteo platypterus) (wing-claps were previously not recorded in this species and when recorded for other owl species were often for the purposes of courtship displays). 
One predator that is a major source of conflict for the barred owl is the great horned owl.  In every part of their range, barred owls are compelled to share space with the larger owls.  There is habitat partitioning between the barred owl and great horned owl that allows them to often co-exist. Great horned owls prefer various more open habitats mixed with trees, often in rather upland areas, which differs from the habitats preferred by the barred owl.   If a great horned owl moves into an area, barred owls appear to avoid said areas based on radiotelemetry.   In much of the east, habitat alteration and fragmentation tends to favor the great horned owl and conversely be at the expense of the barred owl. Where more continuous forest is available, however, the great horned and barred owl can occur surprisingly close to one another. In one case, a barred owl was observed to roost only 400 m (1,300 ft) from a great horned owl.     In general the reforestation at the northern sections of the Great Plains have, on the contrary, benefited barred owls (and may have been a part of allowing their westward expansion) and been perhaps slightly detrimental to the great horned owl.  However, even where the habitat becomes less ideal, the great horned owl is unlikely to vacate an area, unlike the barred owl which can be entirely displaced if woods become too small and fragmented.   There are similarities in the dietary habits of the great horned owl and barred owl, as both are wide-ranging, large and opportunistic owls.   However, the great horned owl is considered larger in bulk, sometimes averaging nearly twice as heavy, with much heavier, larger feet and talons.   The great horned owl is provably rather more powerful  and access a larger prey spectrum than barred owls, which additionally take considerably fewer prey species because they occur in more limited habitats and have a much smaller overall distribution.      A study utilizing stable isotopes in Alberta appeared to confirm that the great horned owl preys on nearly twice as many prey species as do the barred owls of the area. 
The great horned owl is indeed likely to be the greatest natural enemy of the barred owl.    There are several accounts of the horned owl species preying on nestlings, fledglings and adults of the barred.     Other than horned owls, predation of the barred owl seems to be fairly rare outside of the nestling age, both due to the owl’s relatively large size and their nesting habits, most often in secluded tree hollows.  One more virulent nest predator is likely to be raccoons (Procyon lotor), which can easily nearly decimate both tree hollow and stick nests locations of more or less any kind of bird especially in peri-urban areas where they can largely exist without larger controlling predators.   Both the American marten (Martes americana) and the fisher (Pekania pennanti) are known to be nest predators of barred owls, in turn appearing to cause the owls to switch nest sites.  Other birds of prey may be an occasional threat to barred owls. Northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) have reportedly killed both young and adult barred owl.   One modern accounts mentions predation by a goshawk on a nestling barred owl (i.e. weight about 392 g (13.8 oz)).  A well-known instance of a goshawk attack on an adult barred owl concluded with both the owl and goshawk killing one another.   There are some very rare, singular cases of predation on barred owls (age unknown) by red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), which nonetheless generally appears to be a less menacing co-inhabitant than the goshawk.   More surprisingly, a Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a smaller species of raptor, was observed to apparently prey upon a full-grown barred owl in British Columbia.  An apparent instance of predation on a barred owl was reportedly committed by an American alligator (Alligator mississipensis). 
On the other hand, the barred owl is a not inconsiderable predator of smaller raptorial birds as well. Most smaller owls that co-exist with barred owls are at occasional risk of predation.  A particular cause of concern in intraguild predations by the barred has been their encroachment into the areas inhabited by western screech-owl (Megascops kennicotti). Several instances of predation have been noted on the screech-owls and the recent, unprecedented presence of the barred owls appears to have a correlation with the decline of the western screech-owl in British Columbia and in Bainbridge Island, Washington.    In one instance, a biologist who called in an eastern screech-owl (Megascops asio) in Ohio observed it to be immediately captured and consumed by a barred owl. The barred owl is a serious predator of eastern screech-owls but is less deadly to them in general than the great horned owl.   Various additional owl species known to be preyed by barred owls including the flammulated owl (Psiloscops flammeolus) , northern pygmy owl (Glaucidium gnoma) , northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadius)  and long-eared owl (Asio otus) . The interspecific owl trophic chain was perhaps most conspicuous in a case where a barred owl that was shot in New England was found to have a long-eared owl inside its stomach which in turn had an eastern screech-owl in its own stomach.   More unexpectedly, barred owls may even prey on other Strix species. As many as four records of circumstantial but likely predation by barred owls on spotted owls have been reported.   A likely event of predation by a barred owl on an adult great grey owl was observed. The authors hypothesized that the victim may have been a smaller male great grey owl (which can be about the same body mass as a large female barred) but this is the only known instance to date of a great gray owl being killed by another species of Strix owl.  Barred owls have been known to take adults (or full-grown juveniles) of diurnal raptors as well including snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis), Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and possibly the swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus).     
Historically, the breeding ecology of barred owls, relative to the extensive research usually carried out for North American birds of prey, was fairly poorly known, mostly due to its habit of nesting in secluded, perhaps inaccessible nesting sites.   The barred owl’s usual preferred a nest site is usually the hollow trunk of a large tree or the broken-off snag from a large tree branch. Hollows or snags may be made by any variety of sources, often due to a disease or storm, with hollows and snags large enough to accommodate these birds usually only occurring in an old-growth tree.     Typically nest sites are in rather deep and dark wooded areas, often with a well-developed understory but somewhat sparse lower branches and may be fairly close to water.    Average nest heights are between 6.8 and 13.4 m (22 and 44 ft) above the ground.  In a Saskatchewan study, 15 nests were in four assorted tree species, which had a mean nest tree height of 18.8 m (62 ft), a mean nest hollow height of 13.3 m (44 ft) and averaged about 430 m (1,410 ft) from the nearest opening (usually a road).  In 25 studies from throughout the range, mean nest tree height was 18.2 m (60 ft) (lowest mean from Florida where it was 5.9 m (19 ft); the highest from Oregon where it was 28 m (92 ft)), mean nest tree diameter was 65.7 cm (25.9 in) (thinnest mean in Saskatchewan at 47.4 cm (18.7 in); thickest in Washington at 106 cm (42 in)), while the mean height of the tree cavity used from these studies was 9.8 m (32 ft).  A big beech with a rotting core, encompassing a large cavity reached through a deep crevice, is an ideal nest site.  The most widely reported nesting trees in breeding cards were elms (21%) and beeches (15%), followed by oaks, hickories, yellow birches (Betula alleghaniensis), sycamores, aspens, maples and poplars.  In Washington, the most often used nest trees were balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis).  Balsam poplar comprised 62% of known nest sites in Manitoba as well.  It was found in Maryland that snags used were significantly higher than the average height of miscellaneous snags available in environment. The mean size of tree holes the owls used in Maryland was 33 cm (13 in) in inside diameter and 54 cm (21 in) in depth.  These were slightly larger than the average from Michigan, which hollow used averaged 25 cm (9.8 in) in mean diameter and 35 cm (14 in) in mean depth.  Record depth tree cavities used by barred owls was around 2.4 m (7.9 ft) deep from the opening on the tree.  One study of cavity nesting birds in Ontario found that the barred owl preferred to nest in the most massive trees of any cavity-nester in the study area.  In continuous bottomland forest, nests are often about every 226 ha (560 acres).  Territory lines often remain the same even after the original owls are replaced entirely by a new pair.  It was thought in Nova Scotia that some pairs may prospect a potential nest site as much as year before they use it.  Despite usually using sickly or dying trees, some nests have found in partially hollow but still living oaks. 
Usually in areas with few or no natural tree hollows, often within younger secondary forests or overharvested areas, this species will uses other birds’ nests and occasionally also the dreys of squirrels.    Evidence shows that the preference of barred owls for hollows and snags over bird nests is due to their earlier nest type having a more secure microclimate with better shelter (additionally, owl nests in hollows generally tend to be somewhat less vulnerable to predation than those of owls using old bird nests).   Nest built by other birds that are most widely used are probably red-shouldered hawk and Cooper's hawks, while those of red-tailed hawks, usually being in more open areas, are used secondarily outside of a local basis.    In the south, nests have been found between fronds of palmetto palm leaves, in holes of broken palm stems and rotten snags of the palms.  One unconventional nest was on the ground at the base of a lookout tower in Everglades National Park.  Another was on the roof of a shed in Saskatchewan.  Yet another was in an earthen bank in Texas.  Locally, barred owls can take to nest boxes but, in general, barred owls take to these less readily than their cousin Strix owls in Europe.   Suitable nesting hollows may be used quite often in subsequent years, with records of a single hollow seeing up to 25 years of barred owl use (presumably not by the same owls however).  Other long-used nests were one reused in New England for 10 years by the same pair until it rotted out and while a nest box in Nova Scotia was reused 10 times over 16 years.   Over 6 years in Minnesota, 14 nest boxes were reused, 7 were used once, 6 were twice and one was used three times.  Like all owls, barred owls never construct their owl nest but they may press or dig slightly if soil is present or remove the top leaves from a squirrel drey.  
In normal circumstances, barred owls tend to pair bond for life.  Courting pairs are usually newly mature birds but also possibly widowed owls or those re-establishing existing pair bonds after the winter.   During courtship, barred owl males especially may engage in nodding, bowing with half-spread wings and may wobble and twist their head from side to side.   Copulation between pairs usually occurs in late winter, February to March, and occurs several times, probably to ensure implantation.  The female enters a pre-breeding lethargy stage wherein she is fed by the male.  In barred owls, egg laying occurs at two to three day intervals.  In Nova Scotia, the intervals between the first and second eggs were record to be 24 to 72 hours, while the intervals between the second and the third were recorded to be 48 to 96 hours.  If the female does not start immediately incubating, the eggs may freeze in the spring, so the female most often begins incubation with the first egg but sometimes waits until the second egg is laid.   Replacement clutches are seldom recorded but, occasionally, if an entire clutch is lost, one or even two replacement clutches may be laid.  Egg laying typically begins in March and runs throughout April.  In more tropical locales like Florida, egg laying may occur as early as late December, though 22 were laid in between early January and early March.   At similar latitudes in Texas, 22 first eggs were laid between as early as mid-February to as late as early June (latter may have been replacement clutch?).  23 clutches in Iowa and Illinois were initiated in between late February and late April, with roughly corresponding initial egg dates in New Jersey and probably western Maryland as well.    63 initial eggs in New England were laid between mid-March and mid-May.  Further north, 38 clutches in Nova Scotia were initiated in between late March and late May, with initial clutches dates about a week later in Ontario.   Normally the female lays 2 to 3 eggs, although as many as 5 is possible, directly on the base of the nest site.  The mean clutch size in three broad samples from several parts of the range was between 2.22 and 2.46.    In Minnesota, the mean clutch size was 2.68.  The eggs are pure white, slightly rough and not glossy, and oval in shape.  In 157 eggs, the length of the egg could measure from 42.5 to 55.5 mm (1.67 to 2.19 in) while the diameter could range from 37.5 to 45.3 mm (1.48 to 1.78 in), with a mean of 50.6 mm × 43.3 mm (1.99 in × 1.70 in).  25 eggs in Nova Scotia averaged slightly smaller, at 49 mm × 41 mm (1.9 in × 1.6 in).  The mean weight of the egg is around 45.5 g (1.60 oz).  The female alone incubates, doing so for about 28 days, while the male gathers food for her. 
The female tends to closely brood the young for three weeks. Then after, she begins to hunt for the young. Both parents normally continue hunt for the young until they are about 6 weeks old and can fly well.  During the first three weeks, the male does all prey deliveries, either bringing prey directly into the nest or leaves for the female at the nest entrance or on a nearby branch. The mean number of prey deliveries when the young are 6-10 days old is 2.4 per night, 1.4 when they are 11-15 days old, 3.6 when they are 16-20 days old and 2.2 when they are 21-25 days old. He will continue hunting until the young disperse.    The female’s prey deliveries are much more frequent when she resumes hunting, ranging from a mean of 4.8 to 8 deliveries nightly.   Male prey deliveries are often sporadically at any point through the night while female deliveries tend to be clustered immediately after sunset or just before sunrise.  Barred owls have a variable reaction to human disturbance. Some parent owls remain sitting, while some leave the nest upon a person's approach and some attack people climbing to the nest, as well as those approaching young on or near the ground.    There are several accounts of barred owls engaging in fierce nest defense against humans, sometimes reportedly knocking people out of trees.     However, their aggression is variable and, based on studies of similar owls like tawny and Ural owls from Europe, attacks tend to only occur when intrusions and disturbance by humans are frequent.  A distraction display was recorded by a female barred owl when humans approached. In it, she spread and quivered her wings and engaged in chittering and squealing, somewhat similar to the sounds made by begging young. 
The average hatchling weighs about 46 g (1.6 oz).   Like most birds, the young are initially altricial.  The white down feathers that the barred owls are hatched with is replaced by white-tipped barred-buff second down at two to three weeks of age, correspondingly with growth of the wing primaries.  The earlier chicks are bigger and stronger, while the latter ones may not survive if food is scarce.  Size differences between barred owl nestlings may be less pronounced if the female does not begin incubation until the laying of the second egg.  The larger young may fight with the younger siblings for food.  Cannibalism amongst broods rarely occurs in this species generally. When siblicide occurs it is only in some cases with broods with three or more nestlings, and usually occurs at or around three weeks.    In Nova Scotia, the young gained an average of 15 g (0.53 oz) a day for 30 days, with culmen growth and wing and tail growth commencing before and after 15 days of age, respectively.  The young barred owls first start moving about the nest at around this 3 week point and may start to perform threat displays if scared.   Adult-like feathers begin to appear at six weeks of age, starting at the scapulars, then radiating down across the abdomen and flanks up through the upper breast, with the last wisps of down remaining for up to 4 months.    The young often start exploring around the nest tree, often falling to ground (which makes them quite vulnerable to predators despite the parents continued protection). However, the youngsters can usually clamor back up the tree with their feet and bill, constantly wing-flapping.  Fledgling occurs at about 36-39 days.  After that, both parents continue to hunt for the young but prey deliveries taper off as the young begin to make their first flights and practice hunting.     Short flights are typical when the young barred owls are up to around 10 weeks old with longer flights commencing at about 14 weeks.   By the time they are flying and hunting somewhat assuredly in early to mid-autumn, the young move away and gain independence.   Dispersal of 5 young from Nova Scotia was 0.8 to 64 km (0.50 to 39.77 mi) away from their nests of origin. Furthermore, a recovered 6 month old was 8 km (5.0 mi) away from its nests of origin, while five encountered as adults were found at a distance of 16 and 43 km (9.9 and 26.7 mi) from the nests where they hatched.  An exceptional dispersal distance from Nova Scotia was 1,600 km (990 mi) away to Stoney Creek, Ontario.  The post-dispersal stage is one of great mortality among young owls.  Usually juvenile owls are considered “floaters”, often hovering around the perimeter of fiercely defended territories for some time. In some areas, floaters may make use of nest boxes more readily than mature birds.   Yearlings have been known to breed only very rarely, otherwise barred owl usually first breed when they are around two (sometimes three) years old. Therefore, around two years old is considered the age of maturity.   The percentages of successful nests (i.e. at least 1 fledgling produced per attempt), per study were found to be: 86% of 22 clutches in Minnesota (with a mean of 2.42 fledglings per successful attempt) , 66% of 114 clutches in Michigan (with a mean of 1.97 fledglings per successful attempt) , 25% of 6 clutches in Maryland (with a mean of 1 fledgling per all attempts and 1.48 per successful attempts) , 69% of 48 clutches in Nova Scotia (with a mean of 0.25 fledgling per all attempts and 2 per successful attempts)  and 50% of 12 nests in Washington state (with a mean of 1.38 fledgling per all attempts and 1.85 per successful attempts) . Little is known about the specific factors that dictate breeding success, but are likely to include the quality of the nesting site, the food supply in the area, the levels of disturbance from outside actors (usually humans) and the maturity of the pair.   In particular, the ability to use cavity nests was confirmed to raise reproductive success in Michigan where tree cavity nest produced a mean of 1.8 per productive nest but nests that were in other birds’ nests produced a mean of 1 per productive nests. 
The barred owl is a naturally long-living bird. Some record lifespans recorded per banding studies in the wild are 18 years 2 months oldest (initial banding Kentucky, died in Ohio) and 24 years and 1 month in Minnesota.    There are several records of breeding barred owls nesting successfully for a decade or more.   The record lifespan for a barred owl in captivity, where many animals can live longer without the stresses of surviving in wild conditions, was 34 years and 1 month, with six records of captive barred owls living over 30 years.  Known causes of mortality are diverse, some due to predation (largely great horned owls, for nestlings to adults, and probably raccoons, for eggs, nestlings and fledglings).   Some mortality is known to occur during hunting accidents.  There are cases of barred owls being inadvertently killed in furbearer traps.  Sometimes deaths occurs due to the defenses of prey.  One barred owl was killed by the bite of an unknown rodent that was likely defending itself.  Some cases of cannibalism between adult barred owls have been reported as well.  This species like other forest owls is vulnerable to the respiratory disease Aspergillus fumigatus.  Spontaneous infections of West Nile Virus are also known to kill wild barred owls.   Barred owls were the most regularly infected with West Nile Virus of owl species in Georgia, as about 15% of studied barred tested positive (still at a lower rate than some hawks).  Cases of Avipoxivirus are also known in barred owls but, as with West Nile Virus, the rate of mortality to viral infection is not well-known.  A case of follicular thyroid cancer was found in a wild barred owl that was unable to continue to fly.  Fatty liver diseases have been recorded for barred owls in captivity.  Occular lesions are fairly common in barred owls, but can be survived and possibly surgically corrected. 
Parasitism is frequent in barred owls as expected for many different kinds of wild birds.  The parasite load was determined to be higher in larger owls in Florida like the barred and great horned owl and lower in smaller owl species, like eastern screech-owl.  While parasitic infestations are not typically detected as direct mortality causes, in some severe cases complications or direct death can occur. These cases of mortality are most widely recorded in cases of Toxoplasmosis, although generally owls have lower rates of this dangerous parasite than some other species of birds of prey.   26.7% of barred owls in one study had Toxoplasma gondii, the cause of Toxoplasmosis, upon necropsy study, with adults having it more often than immature birds.  Lethal cases of Trichomoniasis are also known.  The effect of other parasites are more poorly known beyond generally compromising their condition but in one case Sarcocystis may have caused paralysis in one barred owl.  Other parasites recorded in barred owls include Eimeria varia , Novyella , Neodiplostomum  as well as apparently rare species of Centrorhynchus and Tetrameres that were first found within barred owls.   Trematode flatworms such as strigeids as well as Tylodelphys and Brachylaima are found in intermediate volume in barred owls relative to other owls.    Invertebrates such as hippoboscid flies and Mallophaga are known to infect barred owls as ectoparasites but seldom at severe levels.   Concern was expressed that barred owls may compromise spotted owl populations with novel parasites.  However, studies of Haemoproteus in barred and spotted owls in northwestern California found that native parasites were finding a new host in barred owls and may have been transmitted from spotted to barred owls but that the barred owl acted as a poor parasite host and may have diluted the parasite levels in owl populations. Furthermore, there was no evidence found that barred owls were spreading parasites to spotted owls. 
The barred owl is one of the most common owls in North America.  The Partners in Flight estimates that the barred owl may number up to 3 million individuals globally, making it the perhaps the second most numerous North American owl behind the great horned owl and perhaps slightly ahead of other commoner species like barn owls and northern saw-whet owls.  It estimated that Canada in total holds about 10,000-50,000 pairs.  Canadian Maritimes had highest densities known, with 3600 pairs, being found in 80% of 10 km2 (3.9 sq mi) blocks totaling 377; this was a conspicuously higher density than that recorded in Ontario, where they were in 28% of 1824 study blocks.  Iowa, Tennessee and Maryland had the highest densities of pairs apparently in the United States, being present from 39-47% of blocks.  Throughout the year, the mean number of sightings per route is 0.12 sightings while during Christmas Bird Counts (CBC), the mean in 0.25 per route.   Generally, breeding bird surveys and CBCs show that the barred owl is stable or increasing.   Reportedly, the barred owl has increased 1.5% per year between 1966 and 2014, which incorporates their western range expansion.  Increases in CBCs were particularly noted after the 1980s, when the population of their near diurnal equivalent, the red-shouldered hawk, appeared to mysteriously crash downwards.  On the other hand, declines of barred owl numbers were confirmed in Illinois, at 0.7% declines, and projected in the Maritimes, Ontario, Iowa and Tennessee.       The main causes of decline are human development and habitat destruction, which leads to barred owl desertion in the area.     Particularly in some of the more northerly parts of the range, clearcutting is heavily degrading their habitat.   In Alberta, at least 39% of the home range has to be well-forested and areas where the forest stands are reduced below 10 to 20 ha (25 to 49 acres) are avoided or vacated.   In Ontario, the forested area needed was estimated as much larger, at 280 ha (690 acres).  Habitat was found to be subpar in southern New Jersey in terms of the size and availability of trees present.  In northern New Jersey, they were the third most distanced from areas of human development at a mean of 671.9 m (2,204 ft) after the red-shouldered hawk and northern goshawk.  Key considerations in maintaining forest quality for barred owls are maintaining structural complex of the forest and old growth unharvested, in particular stands bearing cavities.    In the western part of the range, barred owls appeared to increase along the gradient of human development and were tied for the second most often detected raptor species.  Industrial noise pollution seems to have little effect on the barred owl if good habitat is available. 
In captivity, human approach causes a body temperature increase of 2 degrees in barred owls.  Historically this, as in many other birds of prey, were regularly shot and often with little to no direct cause.  However, as far back as 1893 to 1927, barred owl was considered "entirely beneficial" to human interests due its habit of taking small rodents and insects with moreover little effect on popular gamebirds or domestic animals (unlike its often despised predator, the great horned owl).   The barred owl was the most commonly admitted raptorial bird in a Florida study.  Automobile collisions are now amongst the leading causes of recorded mortality for barred owls.    18.5% of Florida birds (the most common determinable cause of admission and death) in Florida studies were admitted due to automobile collisions.  Roadkills of barred owls in Charlotte, North Carolina were predominantly of 1-2 year old owls and were quite common as roads cut through most of the habitat. Higher speed limits in these especially seemed to be correlated with higher owl mortality.  Fewer other variety of bird strikes that commonly afflict birds near developed areas, such as wire collisions, electrocutions and building collisions, are known for the more forest-based barred owl but 26 strikes with aircraft have been recorded.  A significant presence of organochlorines, chemical byproducts of manmade pesticides and industrial pollutants, was found in barred owls from Illinois and Florida.   A barred owl was killed after being directly sprayed with heptachlor.  Of three owl species in western Canada, the barred owls had the highest traces in their livers of anticoagulant rodenticides, and, in Oregon and Washington, 38-64% had liver concentrations of the rodenticides.   Experiments with nest boxes have had mixed successes (much less than tawny owls in Europe), with the barred owls in some areas adapting to nest boxes with an entrance of over 18 cm (7.1 in) and amongst tall tree stands.  
Barred owls are thought to be partly responsible for the recent decline of the northern spotted owl, native to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.     The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (p. vi) states “Based on the best available scientific information, competition from the barred owl (S. varia) poses a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl.”  Other accounts support that barred owls are likely to be directly causing a decline of spotted owls.   Northern spotted owls were thought to be already declining considerably before barred owls moved into their range, mostly in sync with large-scale logging operations and land development carried out by humans, with their problems now further exacerbated by the barred species presence.  There are ecological discrepancies between the species in areas of sympatry. While both species prefer old-growth forest areas, the spotted owls tend to live in significantly higher elevation areas in Washington's Cascade mountains, with nest sites averaging 966.2 m (3,170 ft) metres above sea level against a mean of 54.1 m (177 ft) for barreds, in areas with more steep slopes.   The barred owls of the area additionally prefer wetter, more variable forest areas, down to riparian zones with limited forested land, while the spotted tended to cluster in more homogenous upland and ancient coniferous forests.  However, little is known on the feasibility or the benefits of habitat maintenance that favors spotted over barred owls. Habitat management measures that favors spotteds are hypothesized to be insufficient to mitigate the negative effect the barred owls are having.   In areas where barred owls moved in within 0.8 km (0.50 mi) of a spotted owl nest area, 39% of spotted owls disappeared and were not seen again, while in areas still free of barred owls (so spared from this interspecific pressure), 11% of spotted owls disappeared and were not refound.  The northern spotted owl morphologically differs from barred owls in several ways, with a smaller body size, averaging around 17.9% lighter in body mass. On the other hand, the spotted owl somewhat surprisingly possesses notably larger feet than those of the barred, with the toe length averaging 58 and 51 mm (2.3 and 2.0 in) in the two species, respectively.  The spotted owl is adapted more so to take arboreal mammals, especially northern flying squirrels supplemented by red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus), whereas the barred owls more so take similarly-sized or slightly smaller terrestrial prey.    However, the larger barred owl, despite its inferior foot morphology, can appear to vary its prey selection much more, from both animals much smaller than those selected by spotted owls, such as various invertebrates, to larger specimens of relatively sizable ground prey like adult snowshoe hares.    In a general study of the Pacific Northwest, the mean prey size of spotted owls was stated at 91 g (3.2 oz) and were estimated to be about 34% higher than the mean prey mass of barred owls, but in a study specifically in the eastern Cascade mountains, where the barred appeared to more readily access large prey like snowshoe hares as well as flying and other squirrels, the barred owl’s mean prey size were contrarily 21% higher than the spotted owls in the mountains.   Despite overlap of prey species ranging up to 76% in some reports, the overall overlap in the Pacific Northwest is more likely around 43%.   
Since the 1960s, barred owls have been expanding their range westward from the eastern US and Canada (see “Distribution and habitat” section above).  While some authors have described the range expansion of barred owls into the west as “natural” , others state that this is a mischaracterization, as there is little to suggest that the barred owls could’ve reached the spotted’s range without the inadvertent aid of humans (i.e. increasing temperatures, in addition to wildlife suppression and tree planting that were likely to facilitate the range increase).  When spotted owls and barred owls share the same area, the barred owls generally are more aggressive and out-compete the spotted owls, leading to decreased populations of the native owls.  The more aggressive response of barred owls to interspecific stimuli has been verified with experiments incorporated vocalization and owl dummies.   The adult survival rates appear higher additionally for barred, at an estimated 91%, over spotted owls, at an estimated 82%, respectively. Therefore, the barred owl is considered “demographically superior”.  Another potential threat is that barred owls and spotted owls occasionally interbreed, creating hybrids ("sparred owl" or "botted owl").   Only 47 hybrids (all between female barred owls and male spotted owls) with barred owls were found in an analysis of more than 9000 banded spotted owls; consequently, hybridization between these two species is considered by the authors of that analysis to be “an interesting biological phenomenon that is probably inconsequential compared with the real threat—direct competition between the two species for food and space” (p. 808).    Most hybrids favor their barred owl heritage with similar and more pale overall coloring than spotted owls, though the back tends to be intermediate in color between the two and variable beak coloring. However, there has been much variation described.   Due to variances in appearance, previously hybrids between the species were overestimated from field identification, only being certainly identified by genetic loci.   Moreover, no recent hybrids could be detected in a survey of the Cascade Mountains.   
Biologists have long hypothesized that culling of barred owls to benefit the spotted owl may be necessary.   A pilot study carried out in Humboldt and Del Norte counties killed 73 of 81 territorial barred owls that could be found. Researchers found barred owls are easily called in with intraspecific calls and shot.  These northern California pilot studies indicate that local elimination of barred owls in combination with stringent habitat protection would be the best measures to conserve the northern spotted owls in the area.   On 5 April 2007, White House officials announced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to shoot barred owls to reduce the threat they pose to the spotted owl.  It called for delineating 18 sites within the range of the spotted owl where 12–32 barred owls would be taken per site for 5 to 10 years.  Approximately 2150 to 2850 barred owls would be killed for a 3- to 5-year study, and 4650 Barred Owls would be killed for a 10-year study.  The scope of this removal study is without precedent in history.    The removal program would, during its first year, result in the death of 36 times more raptors than in all other conservation-based projects combined in the United States and its territories, and 84 times more raptors than in the largest ongoing effort worldwide, at a cost of $1 million annually; simplifying the cost to dollars per barred owl killed approximates $700 per barred owl for the first year and $2800 per barred owl for each subsequent year.  Many environmentalists fear increased blame on barred owls for declining spotted owl numbers will result in less attention being paid to territorial protection and resumption of logging in protected spotted owl habitat.   Even if the barred owl is entirely eradicated from areas of sympatry, some authors have considered that the ceaseless threats of habitat loss and global warming would still quite possibly lead to the extinction of the northern spotted owl. 
John James Audubon illustrated the barred owl in Birds of America (published, London 1827–38) as Plate 46 where it is shown threatening a grey squirrel. The image was engraved and colored by Robert Havell's, London workshops. The original aquatint by Audubon is owned by the Brooklyn Museum. 
- * BirdLife International (2012). "Strix varia". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2012. Retrieved 17 March 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv ( link)old-form url
- Sclater, P. L. (1879). Remarks on the Nomenclature of the British Owls, and on the Arrangement of the Order Striges. Ibis, 21(3), 346-352.
- Konig, Claus; Weick, Friedhelm; Becking, Jan-Hendrick (1999). Owls: A Guide to the Owls of the World. Yale University Press. pp. 327–328.
- Evers, L. (2014). Beyond anyone's control. Northwest Science, 88(1), 65-67.
- Kelly, E. G. (2001). The range expansion of the northern barred owl: an evaluation of the impact on spotted owls. Thesis, Oregon State University.
- Mazur, K. M. & James, P.C. (2020). Barred Owl (Strix varia), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- "Barred Owl". Audubon. 2014-11-13. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
- Voous, Karel H.; Cameron, Ad (illustrator) (1988). Owls of the Northern Hemisphere. London, Collins. pp. 225–230. ISBN 978-0-00-219493-8.
- Buchanan, J. B., Gutierrez, R. J., Anthony, R. G., Cullinan, T., Diller, L. V., Forsman, E. D., & Franklin, A. B. (2007). A synopsis of suggested approaches to address potential competitive interactions between Barred Owls (Strix varia) and Spotted Owls (S. occidentalis). Biological Invasions, 9(6), 679-691.
- Livezey, K. B. (2010). Killing barred owls to help spotted owls I: a global perspective. Northwestern Naturalist, 91(2), 107-133.
- Hume, R. (1991). Owls of the world. Running Press, Philadelphia.
- Owls of the World: A Photographic Guide by Mikkola, H. Firefly Books (2012), ISBN 9781770851368
- Holt, D.W., Berkley, R., Deppe, C., Enríquez Rocha, P., Petersen, J.L., Rangel Salazar, J.L., Segars, K.P., Wood, K.L. & Marks, J.S. (2019). Typical Owls. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
- Earley, C. (2004). Hawks & Owls of the Great Lakes Region & Eastern North America. Firefly Books.
- Weidensaul, S. (2015). Owls of North America and the Caribbean. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Braekevelt, C. R., Smith, S. A., & Smith, B. J. (1996). Fine structure of the retinal photoreceptors of the barred owl (Strix varia). Histol Histopathol, 11, 79-88.
- Dice, L. R. (1945). Minimum intensities of illumination under which owls can find dead prey by sight. The American Naturalist, 79(784), 385-416.
- Terres, J. K. (1980). The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York, NY: Knopf. p. 665. ISBN 0-394-46651-9.
- Kelso, L., & Kelso, E. H. (1936). The relation of feathering of feet of American owls to humidity of environment and to life zones. The Auk, 51-56.
- Shufeldt, R. W. (1911). Plumages of the Young of the Barred Owl. The Wilson Bulletin, 23(2), 113-119.
- Acker, J., & Garcia, D. (2010). Notes on rectrix molt in Barred Owls (Strix varia). North American Bird Bander, 35(2).
- Karalus, K. E. & Eckert, E.W. (1974). The owls of North America (north of Mexico). Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.
- Dean, R. (1976). Albinism and melanism among North American Birds. Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, 2: 20-24.
- Barred Owl (Strix varia) – Information, Pictures, Sounds. The Owl Pages (2015-11-04). Retrieved on 2016-08-01.
- Ridgway, R., & Friedmann, H. (1914). The Birds of North and Middle America: A Descriptive Catalog of the Higher Groups, Genera, Species, and Subspecies of Birds Known to Occur in North America, from the Arctic Lands to the Isthmus of Panama, the West Indies and Other Islands of the Caribbean Sea, and the Galapagos Archipelago (Vol. 50). US Government Printing Office.
- Johnson, D. H. (1997). Wing loading in 15 species of North American owls. In In: Duncan, James R.; Johnson, David H.; Nicholls, Thomas H., eds. Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere: 2nd International symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-190. St. Paul, MN: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 553-561. (Vol. 190).
- Gjeltema, J. L., Degernes, L. A., Buckanoff, H. D., & Marcellin-Little, D. J. (2018). Evaluation of Goniometry and Electrogoniometry of Carpus and Elbow Joints in the Barred Owl (Strix varia). Journal of avian medicine and surgery, 32(4), 267-278.
- Liu, L. G., Le Piane, K., & Clark, C. J. (2018). Barred Owl (Strix varia) Feather Pennulae and Their Role in Reducing Structural Noise in Flight. In INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY (Vol. 58, pp. E364-E364). JOURNALS DEPT, 2001 EVANS RD, CARY, NC 27513 USA: OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC.
- Earhart, C. M., & Johnson, N. K. (1970). Size dimorphism and food habits of North American owls. The Condor, 72(3), 251-264.
- Carpenter, T. W. (1992). Utility of wing length, tail length and tail barring in determining the sex of Barred Owls collected in Michigan and Minnesota. The Condor, 94(3), 794-795.
- Hamer, T. E. (1988). Home range size of the northern barred owl and northern spotted owl in western Washington (Master's thesis, Western Washington University).
- Howell, S. N., & Webb, S. (1995). A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press.
- American Ornithologists' Union (1957). Check-list of North American Birds, 5th edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, USA.
- Bent, A. C. (1961). Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey (part 2), Orders Falconiformes and Stringiformes (Vol. 170). US Government Printing Office.
- Bosakowski, T. (1987). Census of Barred Owls and Spotted Owls. In Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls: Symposium Proceedings: February 3-7, 1987, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Vol. 142, p. 307). Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
- Odom, K. (2009). Vocalizations, vocal behaviour, and geographic variation in the calls, duets, and duetting behaviour of a nonpasserine, the Barred Owl (Strix varia). M.S. Thesis, University of Windsor.
- Haas, F. C. & Burrows, R. (2005). Birds of Pennsylvania. Lone Pine.
- Mcgarigal, K. & Fraser, J.D. (1985). Barred owl responses to recorded vocalizations. Condor 87:552-553.
- Odom, K. J., & Mennill, D. J. (2010). A quantitative description of the vocalizations and vocal activity of the Barred Owl. The Condor, 112(3), 549-560.
- Brewster, W., & Chapman, F. M. (1891). Notes on the birds of the lower Suwanee River. The Auk, 8(2), 125-138.
- Saunders, A. A. (1951). A guide to bird songs. New York, NY: Doubleday.
- Taber, W. (1940). The Scream of the Northern Barred Owl. The Auk, 57(2), 253-253.
- Bird, D. M., & Bird, J.O. (1977). Apparent distraction display by a Barred Owl. Canadian Field-Naturalist 91:176-177.
- Alderfer, Jonathan (2006). National Geographic: Complete Birds of North America. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society. pp. 330–331.
- Mosher, J. A., Fuller, M. R., & Kopeny, M. (1990). Surveying Woodland Raptors by Broadcast of Conspecific Vocalizations (Conteo de Aves Rapaces en Áreas Boscosas Utilizando Grabaciones de la Vocalización de Conespecíficos). Journal of field Ornithology, 453-461.
- Dunstan, T. C., & Sample, S. D. (1972). Biology of barred owls in Minnesota. Loon, 44(4), 111-115.
- Taylor, P. (1983). Wings along the Winnipeg: birds of the Pinawa-Lac du Bonnet region, Manitoba. Winnipeg, MB: (Eco Series no. 2.) Manitoba Nat. Soc.
- Yannielli, L. C. (1989). Preferred habitat of barred owls (Strix varia) in Litchfield County, Connecticut, with additional comments on distribution and abundance. M.S. thesis, South. Conn. State Univ.
- Odom, K. J., & Mennill, D. J. (2012). Inconsistent geographic variation in the calls and duets of Barred Owls (Strix varia) across an area of genetic introgression. The Auk, 129(3), 387-398.
- Freeman, P. L. (2000). Identification of individual Barred Owls using spectrogram analysis and auditory cues. Journal of Raptor Research, 34(2), 85-92.
- Erskine, A. J. (1992). Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS, Canada.
- Gagnon, C. & Bombardier, M. (1996). "Barred Owl." In The breeding birds of Quebec: atlas of the breeding birds of southern Québec., edited by J. Gauthier and Y. Aubry, 598-601. Québec Region, Montréal: Assoc. québecoise des groupes d'ornithologues, Prov. of Quebec Soc. for the protection of birds, Can. Wildl. Serv., Environ. Canada.
- Eagles, P. F., Cadman, M. D., & Helleiner, F. M. (1987). Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press.
- Peck, G. K., & James, R. D. (1993). Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines (first Revision-part A: loons to ducks). Ontario Birds, 11, 18-22.
- Schmelzer, I., & Phillips, F. (2004). First record of a Barred Owl, Strix varia, in Labrador. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 118(2), 273-276.
- Janssen, R. B. (1987). Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
- Peterson, R. A. (1995). The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists' Union, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, USA.
- Johnsgard, P. A. (1979). Birds of the Great Plains: Breeding Species and their Distribution. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA.
- Johnsgard, P. A. (1988). North American owls: biology and natural history. Smithsonian Institute.
- Holt, D. W. (1993). Presence and distribution of Mexican owls: a review. J Raptor Res, 27(3), 154-160.
- Livezey, K. B. (2009). Range expansion of Barred Owls, part I: chronology and distribution. The American Midland Naturalist, 161(1), 49-56.
- Blake, E. R. (1947). Barred owl thirty miles from land. The Wilson Bulletin, 59(2), 111.
- Livezey, K.B. (2009). "Range expansion of Barred Owls, part 2: facilitating ecological changes". American Midland Naturalist. 161 (2): 323–349. doi: 10.1674/0003-0031-161.2.323.
- Holt, D. W., Domenech, R., & Paulson, A. (2001). Status and distribution of the Barred Owl in Montana. Northwestern Naturalist, 102-110.
- Livezey KB (2010). "Killing barred owls to help spotted owls II: implications for many other range-expanding species". Northwestern Naturalist. 91 (3): 251–270. doi: 10.1898/NWN09-38.1. JSTOR 40983223.
- Houston S. (1979). "The spread of the Western Kingbird across the prairies". Blue Jay. 37: 149–157.
- Gamble LR, Bergin TM. 1996. Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), no. 227. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York
- Weeks HP. 1994. Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), no. 94. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
- Gowaty PA, Plissner GH. (1998). Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), no. 381. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
- Smith GH (1978). "Range extension of the Blue Jay into western North America". Bird-Banding. 49 (3): 208–214. doi: 10.2307/4512360. JSTOR 4512360.
- Tarvin KA, Woolfenden GE. (1999). Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), no. 469. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
- Cavitt JF, Haas CA. (2000). Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), no. 557. In: A. Poole (ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
- Houston S. (1983). "Trees and the Red-tailed Hawk in southern Saskatchewan". Blue Jay. 41: 99–109.
- Houston S. (1977). "Changing patterns of Corvidae on the prairies". Blue Jay. 35: 149–155.
- Duncan, J. R., & Duncan, P. A. (1997). Increase in distribution records of owl species in Manitoba based on a volunteer nocturnal survey using Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) and Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) playback. In In: Duncan, James R.; Johnson, David H.; Nicholls, Thomas H., eds. Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere: 2nd International symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-190. St. Paul, MN: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 519-524. (Vol. 190).
- Smith, A. R. (1996). Atlas of Saskatchewan Birds. Saskatchewan Natural History Society Special Publications 22, Regina, SK, Canada.
- Semenchuk, G. P. (1992). The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
- Olsen, B. (2005). Status of the barred owl (Strix varia) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish & Wildlife Division, Resource Data & Species at Risk Section.
- Seton, E. E. T. (1886). The birds of western Manitoba. Auk 3:145-156, 320-329.
- Preble, E. A. (1941). Barred Owl on Athabaska River, Alberta. Auk 58:407-408.
- Houston, S. (1961). First Saskatchewan nest of Barred Owl. Blue Jay 19:114-115.
- Priestley, L. T. (2004). The Barred Owl, Strix varia in Alberta: distribution and status. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 118(2), 215-224.
- Campbell, W., Dawe, N. K., McTaggart-Cowan, I., Cooper, J. M., Kaiser, G. W., & McNall, M. C. (2011). Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2: Nonpasserines-Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. UBC Press.
- Campbell, R. W. (1973). Coastal records of the barred owl for British Columbia. The Murrelet, 25-25.
- Grant, J. (1966). The barred owl in British Columbia. The Murrelet, 47(2), 39-45.
- Gibson, D. D., & Kessel, B. (1992). Seventy-four new avian taxa documented in Alaska 1976-1991. The Condor, 94(2), 454-467.
- Montana Bird Distribution Records Committee (1992). P. D. Skaar's Montana Bird Distribution. 4th edition. Montana Natural History Program, Helena, MT, USA.)
- Stephens, D. A., & Sturts, S. H. (1997). Idaho bird distribution: mapping by latilong. Idaho Mus. Nat. Hist, Spec. Publ, 13.
- Aiken, C. E. (1900). Seven new birds for Colorado. Auk 17:574.
- Cooke, W. W. (1909). The birds of Colorado-third supplement. Auk 26:400–422.
- Smith, M. R., Mattocks Jr., P.W. & Cassidy, K.M. (1997). Breeding birds of Washington State. In Washington State gap analysis - final report, edited by K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith and K. M. Dvornich. Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology no. 1., Seattle, WA, USA.
- Gilligan, J., Rogers, D., Smith, M. & Contreras, A. (1994). Birds of Oregon: Status and Distribution. Cinclus Publications, McMinnville, OR, USA.
- Rogers, T. H. (1966). The fall migration: Northern Rocky Mountain-Intermountain region. Audubon Field Notes 20: 74.
- Taylor Jr, A. L., & Forsman, E. D. (1976). Recent range extensions of the Barred Owl in western North America, including the first records for Oregon. The Condor, 78(4), 560-561.
- Sharp, D. U. (1989). Range extension of the Barred Owl in western Washington and first breeding record on the Olympic Peninsula. Journal of Raptor Research 23:179-180.
- Dark, S. J., Gutierrez, R. J., & Gould Jr, G. I. (1998). The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion in California. The Auk, 115(1), 50-56.
- LeValley, R., & Evens, J. (1982). The nesting season: middle Pacific coast region. American Birds, 36, 1011-1015.
- Sakai, H. (2005). Range expansion of the Barred Owls into Redwood National and State Parks: management implications and consequences for threatened Northern Spotted Owls. Park Science, 24, 24-27.
- Nicholls, T. H., & Warner, D. W. (1972). Barred Owl habitat use as determined by radiotelemetry. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 213-224.
- McGarigal, K., & Fraser, J. D. (1984). The effect of forest stand age on owl distribution in southwestern Virginia. The Journal of wildlife management, 48(4), 1393-1398.
- Mazur, K. M., Frith, S. D., & James, P. C. (1998). Barred owl home range and habitat selection in the boreal forest of central Saskatchewan. The Auk, 115(3), 746-754.
- Haney, J. C. (1997). Spatial incidence of Barred Owl (Strix varia) reproduction in old-growth forest of the Appalachian Plateau. Journal of Raptor Research 31:241-252.
- Dickson, J. G. (1988). Bird communities in oak-gum-cypress forests. Bird conservation, 3, 51-62.
- Laidig, K. J., & Dobkin, D. S. (1995). SPATIAL OVERLAP AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF BARRED OWLS AND GREAT HORNED OWLS IN SOUTHERN NEW-JERSEY. Journal of Raptor Research, 29(3), 151-157.
- Winton, B. R., & Leslie, D. M. (2004). Density and habitat associations of barred owls at the edge of their range in Oklahoma. Southeastern Naturalist, 3(3), 475-482.
- Sutton, C. C., & Sutton, P. T. (1986). The status and distribution of Barred Owl and Red-shouldered Hawk in southern New Jersey. Cassinia, 61, 20-29.
- Smith, C. F. (1978). Distributional ecology of Barred and Great Horned owls in relation to human distribution. Master's Thesis, Univ. of Connecticut, Hartford.
- Rothauser, B. (2003). Barred Owl, Strix varia. NJ Fish and Wildlife.
- Elody, B. I., & Sloan, N. F. (1985). Movements and habitat use of Barred Owls in the Huron Mountains of Marquette County, Michigan, as determined by radiotelemetry. Jack-Pine Warbler, 63(1), 3-8.
- Fuller, M. R. (1979). Spatiotemporal ecology of four sympatric raptor species. Phd Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
- Bierregaard, R. O. (2018). Barred Owls: a nocturnal generalist thrives in wooded, suburban habitats. In Urban Raptors (pp. 138-151). Island Press, Washington, DC.
- Owls Get Wise to Better Life in Cities, Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, 2007
- Clement, M., Barrett, K., & Baldwin, R. (2019). Key habitat features facilitate the presence of Barred Owls in developed landscapes. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 14(2).
- Dykstra, C. R., Simon, M. M., Daniel, F. B., & Hays, J. L. (2012). Habitats of Suburban Barred Owls (Strix varia) and Red-Shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus) in Southwestern Ohio. Journal of Raptor Research, 46(2), 190-200.
- Bosakowski, T., Speiser, R., & Benzinger, J. (1987). Distribution, density, and habitat relationships of the Barred Owl in northern New Jersey. Biology and Conservation of Northern Owls. Gen. Tech. Re, RM-142. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 135-143.
- Rubino, M. J. (2001). Identifying barred owl habitat in the North Carolina Piedmont: using GIS in focal species conservation planning (Master's thesis, North Carolina State University.).
- Van Ael, S. M. (1996). Modelling Barred Owl habitat in northwestern Ontario. Master's Thesis, Lakehead Univ., Thunder Bay, ON.
- Mazur, K. M., James, P. C., Fitzsimmons, M. J., Langen, G., & Espie, R. H. M. (1997). Habitat associations of the Barred Owl in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Raptor Research, 31(3), 253-259.
- Takats, D. L. (1998). Barred Owl habitat use and distribution in the Foothills Model Forest. Master's Thesis, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton.
- Dunbar, D. L., Booth, B. P., Forsman, E. D., Hetherington, A. E., & Wilson, D. J. (1991). Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian field-naturalist. Ottawa ON, 105(4), 464-468.
- Irwin, L. L., Rock, D. F., & Rock, S. C. (2018). Barred owl habitat selection in west coast forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(1), 202-216.
- Shea, D. S. (1974). Barred Owl records in western Montana. Condor 76:222.
- Wright, A. L., & Hayward, G. D. (1998). Barred Owl range expansion into the central Idaho wilderness. Journal of Raptor Research, 32(2), 77-81.
- Leder, J. E., & Walters, M. L. (1980). Nesting observations for the barred owl in western Washington. The Murrelet, 61(3), 110-112.
- Hamer, T. E. (1988). Home range size of the Northern Barred Owl and Northern Spotted Owl in western Washington. Master's Thesis, West. Washington Univ., Bellingham, WA.)
- Whiklo, T. M., & Duncan, J. R. (2014). Characteristics of Barred Owl (Strix varia) nest sites in Manitoba, Canada. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 128(1), 38-43.
- Olsen, B. (1999). Breeding habitat ecology of the barred owl (Strix varia) at three spatial scales in the boreal mixedwood forest of north-central Alberta. UNM.
- Singleton, P. H. (2015). Forest structure within barred owl (Strix varia) home ranges in the Eastern Cascade Range, Washington. Journal of Raptor Research, 49(2), 129-140.
- Grossman, S. R., Hannon, S. J., & Sánchez-Azofeifa, A. (2008). Responses of Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls (Strix varia), and Northern Saw-whet Owls (Aegolius acadicus) to forest cover and configuration in an agricultural landscape in Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 86(10), 1165-1172.
- Barton, B. S. (1883). Barton's Fragments of the Natural History of Pennsylvania. Willughby Society.
- Sibley, C. G., & Ahlquist, J. E. (1990). Phylogeny and classification of birds: a study in molecular evolution. Yale University Press.
- Gill, Frank; Donsker, David, eds. (2019). "Owls". World Bird List Version 9.1. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
- Wink, M., El-Sayed, A. A., Sauer-Gürth, H., & Gonzalez, J. (2009). Molecular phylogeny of owls (Strigiformes) inferred from DNA sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b and the nuclear RAG-1 gene. Ardea, 97(4), 581-592.
- Jánossy D. (1972). Die mittelpleistozäne Vogelfauna der Stránská skála. – In: Musil R. (ed.): Stránská skála I. – Anthropos (Brno) 20: 35-64.
- Haig, S. M., Mullins, T. D., Forsman, E. D., Trail, P. W., & Wennerberg, L. I. V. (2004). Genetic identification of spotted owls, barred owls, and their hybrids: legal implications of hybrid identity. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1347-1357.
- Eck, S. (1968). Der Zeichnungsparallelismus der Strix varia. Zool. Abhandl. Staatl. Mus. Tierk. Dresden, 29: 283-288.
- Mayr, E., & Short, L. L. (1970). Species taxa of North American birds: a contribution to comparative systematics. Nuttall Ornithological Club.
- Hanna, Z. R., Henderson, J. B., Wall, J. D., Emerling, C. A., Fuchs, J., Runckel, C., Mindell, D.P., Bowie, R.C.K., DeRisi, J.L. & Dumbacher, J. P. (2017). Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) genome: divergence with the barred owl (Strix varia) and characterization of light-associated genes. Genome biology and evolution, 9(10), 2522-2545.
- Campbell Jr, K. E., & Bochenski, Z. M. (2010). A new genus for the extinct late Pleistocene owl Strix brea Howard (Aves: Strigiformes) from Rancho La Brea, California. Records of the Australian Museum, 62, 123-144.
- Howard, H. (1933). A new species of owl from the Pleistocene of Rancho La Brea, California. The Condor, 35(2), 66-69.
- Wetmore, A. (1940). A checklist of the fossil birds of North America. Smithson. Misc. Collect. 99, no. 4.
- Parmalee, P. W., & Klippel, W. E. (1982). Evidence of a boreal avifauna in middle Tennessee during the late Pleistocene. The Auk, 99(2), 365-368.
- Wetmore, A. (1958). Miscellaneous notes on fossil birds. Vol. 135, no. 8. Washington, D.C: Smithson. Inst.
- Kelso, L. (1940). Variation of the external ear-opening in the Strigidae. Wilson Bull. 52, 24-29.
- Dickey, D. R., & Van Rossem, A. J. (1938). The birds of El Salvador (Vol. 23). Field Museum of Natural History.
- Monroe, B. L. (1968). A distributional survey of the birds of Honduras. Ornithological Monographs 7.
- Pieplow, N. & Spencer, A. "Mexico's Mystery Owl". EarBirding.com. Retrieved 2020-04-21.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- Barrowclough, G. F., Groth, J. G., Odom, K. J., & Lai, J. E. (2011). Phylogeography of the Barred Owl (Strix varia): species limits, multiple refugia, and range expansion. The Auk, 128(4), 696-706.
- Courtney, S.P. Blakesley, J.A., Bigley, R.E., Cody, M.L., Dumbacher, J.P., Fleischer, R.C., Franklin, A.B., Franklin, J.F. Gutiérrez, R.J., Marzluff, J.M. & Sztukowski, L. (2004). Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Oregon Fish & Wildlife.
- Chesser, R. T., Burns, K. J., Cicero, C., Dunn, J. L., Kratter, A. W., Lovette, I. J., Rasmussen, P.C., Remsen, Jr., J.V., Stotz, D.F., Winger, B.M. & Winker, K. (2018). Fifty-ninth supplement to the American Ornithological Society's check-list of North American birds. The Auk: Ornithological Advances, 135(3), 798-813.
- Peters, J. L. (1940). Check-list of birds of the world. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
- Fujito, N. T., Hanna, Z. R., Levy-Sakin, M., Bowie, R. C., Kwok, P. Y., Dumbacher, J. P., & Wall, J. D. (2020). Genomic variation and population histories of spotted (Strix occidentalis) and barred (S. varia) owls. bioRxiv.
- Bishop, L. B. (1931). Three apparently undescribed owls. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 44, 93-95.
- Weick, Friedhelm (2007). Owls (Strigiformes): Annotated and Illustrated Checklist. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-39567-6.
- Wetmore, A. (1930). The Florida Barred Owl in North Carolina. The Auk, 47(2), 253-253.
- Stevenson, H. M., & Anderson, B.H. (1994). The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
- Oberholser, H. C. (1974). The Bird Life of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, USA.
- Hamerstrom, F., & Janick, K. (1973). Diurnal sleep rhythm of a young barred owl. The Auk, 90(4), 899-900.
- Tester, J. R. (1987). Changes in daily activity rhythms of some free-ranging animals in Minnesota. ONT. FIELD-NAT., 101(1), 13-21.
- Caldwell, L. D. (1972). Diurnal hunting by a Barred Owl. Jack Pine Warbler 50:93-94.
- Jackson, J. A., & White, R. (1995). Diurnal roadside hunting by Barred Owls. Journal of Louisiana Ornithology, 3, 13-15.
- Campbell, J. M. (1969). The owls of the central Brooks Range, Alaska. The Auk, 86(3), 565-568.
- Diller, L. V., Dumbacher, J. P., Bosch, R. P., Bown, R. R., & Gutiérrez, R. J. (2014). Removing barred owls from local areas: techniques and feasibility. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(1), 211-216.
- Kissling, M. L., Lewis, S. B., & Pendleton, G. (2010). Factors influencing the detectability of forest owls in southeastern Alaska. The Condor, 112(3), 539-548.
- Blakemore, L. A. (1940). Barred Owl food habits in Glenwood Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Flicker, 12, 21-23.
- Applegate, R. D. (1975). Co-roosting of Barred Owls and Common Grackles. Bird-Banding 46: 169-170.
- Barrows, C. W. (1981). Roost selection by Spotted Owls: an adaptation to heat stress. Condor 83: 302-309.
- Carter, J. D. (1925). Behavior of the Barred Owl. Auk 42:443-444.
- Fitzpatrick, J. W. (1975). A record of allopreening in the Barred Owl. Auk 92: 598-599.
- Scott, D. (1980). Owls allopreening in the wild. British Birds, 73, 436-39.
- Livezey, K.B. (2007). "Barred Owl habitat and prey: a review and synthesis of the literature". Journal of Raptor Research. 41 (3): 177–201. doi: 10.3356/0892-1016(2007)41[177:BOHAPA]2.0.CO;2.
- Elody, B. I., & Sloan, N. F. (1985). Movements and habitat use of Barred Owls in the Huron Mountains of Marquette County, Michigan, as determined by radiotelemetry. Jack-Pine Warbler, 63(1), 3-8.
- Fuller, M. R. (1979). Spatiotemporal ecology of four sympatric raptor species. Phd Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
- Odom, K. J., & Mennill, D. J. (2010). Vocal duets in a nonpasserine: an examination of territory defence and neighbour–stranger discrimination in a neighbourhood of barred owls. Behaviour, 619-639.
- Galeotti, P., & Pavan, G. (1993). Differential responses of territorial Tawny Owls Strix aluco to the hooting of neighbours and strangers. Ibis, 135(3), 300-304.
- Mazur, K. M. (1997). Spatial habitat selection by Barred Owls in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. Master's Thesis, Univ. of Regina, Regina, SK.
- Nicholls, T. H. & Fuller, M. R. (1987). Territorial Aspects of Barred Owl Home Range and Behavior in Minnesota. In Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls: Symposium Proceedings. February 3-7, 1987, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Vol. 142, p. 121). Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
- Elody, B. I. (1983). Techniques for capturing, marking, monitoring, and habitat analysis for the Barred Owl in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Master's Thesis, Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton.
- "Barred Owl - Description, Habitat, Image, Diet, and Interesting Facts". Animals Network. Retrieved 2018-11-01.
- Lilley, G. (1998). A study of the silent flight of the owl. In 4th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference (p. 2340).
- Wiens, J. D., Anthony, R. G., & Forsman, E. D. (2014). Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs, 185(1), 1-50.
- Sutherland, D. A., & Jones, I. L. (2010). Successful Diurnal Foraging by a Barred Owl. Ontario Birds.
- Nero, R. W. (1993). Evidence of Snow-plunging by Boreal and Barred Owls. Blue Jay, 51, 166-169.
- Takats, D. L. (1996). Foraging observations of a Barred Owl in the Foothills Model Forest. Alberta Naturalist 26: 29-30.
- Elderkin, M. F. (1987). The breeding and feeding ecology of a Barred Owl Strix varia Barton population in Kings County, Nova Scotia. Master's Thesis, Acadia Univ., Wolfville, NS.
- Duke, G. E., Fuller, M. R., & Huberty, B. J. (1980). The influence of hunger on meal to pellet intervals in barred owls. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, A, 66(2), 203-207.
- Ward, A. B., Weigl, P. D., & Conroy, R. M. (2002). Functional morphology of raptor hindlimbs: implications for resource partitioning. The Auk, 119(4), 1052-1063.
- Kapfer, J. M., Gammon, D. E., & Groves, J. D. (2011). Carrion-feeding by Barred Owls (Strix varia). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 123(3), 646-649.
- Forbush, E. H. (1925). Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. Volume 2. Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, Boston, USA.
- Livezey, K.B., Elderkin, M.F., Cott, P.A., Hobbs, J., Hudson, J.P. (2008). "Barred owls eating worms and slugs: the advantage in not being picky eaters". Northwestern Naturalist. 89 (3): 185–190. doi: 10.1898/NWN08-04.1. JSTOR 30135134.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- Barred Owl Archived 2017-10-27 at the Wayback Machine. Fcps.edu. Retrieved on 2016-08-01.
- Snyder, N. F., & Wiley, J. W. (1976). Sexual size dimorphism in hawks and owls of North America (No. 20). American Ornithologists' Union.
- Marks, J. S., Hendricks, D. P., & Marks, V. S. (1984). Winter food habits of Barred Owls in western Montana. The Murrelet, 65(1), 27-28.
- Bosakowski, T., & Smith, D. G. (1992). Comparative diets of sympatric nesting raptors in the eastern deciduous forest biome. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(5), 984-992.
- Marti, C. D., Korpimäki, E., & Jaksić, F. M. (1993). Trophic structure of raptor communities: a three-continent comparison and synthesis. In Current ornithology (pp. 47-137). Springer, Boston, MA.
- Graham, S. A. (2012). Diet composition, niche and geographic characteristics, and prey size preference of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in the Pacific Northwest. Masters Thesis, Oregon State University.
- Hamer, T.E., Hays, D.L., Senger, C.M., Forsman, E.D. (2001). "Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry". Journal of Raptor Research. 35: 221–227.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- Barred Owl, Owling
- Habitat Suitability Index Models:Barred Owl, US Fish and Wildlife Service
- Holt, D. W., & Bitter, C. (2007). Barred Owl winter diet and pellet dimensions in western Montana. Northwestern Naturalist, 88(1), 7-11.
- Cahn, A. R., & Kemp, J. T. (1930). On the food of certain owls in east-central Illinois. The Auk, 323-328.
- Rusling, W. J. (1951). Food habits of New Jersey owls. Proc. Linnaean Soc. New York, (58-62), 38-45.
- Wilson, K. A. (1938). Owl studies at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Auk, 55(2), 187-197.
- Hamerstrom Jr, F. N., & Hamerstrom, F. (1951). Food of young raptors on the Edwin S. George Reserve. The Wilson Bulletin, 16-25.
- Errington, P. L. (1932). Food habits of southern Wisconsin raptors. Part I. Owls. The Condor, 34(4), 176-186.
- Allan, P. F. (1936). Microtus ochrogaster in Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy, 17(3), 291-291.
- Hindmarch, S., & Elliott, J. E. (2015). When owls go to town: the diet of urban Barred Owls. Journal of Raptor Research, 49(1), 66-74.
- Powers, K. E., Dimas, M. S., Leon, A. I., & Vanmeter, L. M. (2020). Observed Predation of Neotoma magister (Allegheny Woodrat) by Strix varia (Barred Owl) in Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 27(1).
- HaySmith, L. (1995). Neotoma floridana floridana: natural history, populations, and movements in northcentral Florida. Bull. Flor. Mus. Nat. Hist, 38, 211-243.
- Meritt, Jr., D. A., & Eul, R. (2013). Barred Owl pellet contents in Michigan. Illinois State Academy of Science. Transactions, 106, 55.
- Hayssen, V. (2008). Patterns of body and tail length and body mass in Sciuridae. Journal of Mammalogy, 89(4), 852-873.
- Devereux, J. G., & Mosher, J. A. (1984). Breeding ecology of Barred Owls in the central Appalachians. Raptor Research, 18(2), 49-58.
- Bergstrom, B. J., & Smith, M. T. (2017). Bats as predominant food items of nesting barred owls. Southeastern Naturalist, 16(1).
- George, S. B. (1989). Sorex trowbridgii. Mammalian Species, (337), 1-5.
- Whiklo, T. (2012). Nest structure and breeding habitat characteristics of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in Manitoba, Canada.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey. (1909). The Rabbits of North America. Washington D.C., USA: Washington Government Printing Office.
- Smith, A. T., Johnston, C. H., Alves, P. C., & Hackländer, K. (Eds.). (2018). Lagomorphs: pikas, rabbits, and hares of the world. JHU Press.
- Janos, G. A., & Root, K. V. (2014). Bats do not alter their foraging activity in response to owl calls. The American Midland Naturalist, 171(2), 375-378.
- Linnell, M. A., Epps, C. W., Forsman, E. D., & Zielinski, W. J. (2017). Survival and predation of weasels (Mustela erminea, Mustela frenata) in North America. Northwest science, 91(1), 15-26.
- Korschgen, L. J., & Stuart, H. B. (1972). Twenty years of avian predator-small mammal relationships in Missouri. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 269-282.
- Lesmeister, D. B., Millspaugh, J. J., Gompper, M. E., & Mong, T. W. (2010). Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) survival and cause-specific mortality in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. The American Midland Naturalist, 164(1), 52-60.
- Smith, Dwight G. (2002). Great Horned Owl (1st ed.). Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. pp. 33, 80–81. ISBN 978-0811726894.
- Cromrich, L. A., Holt, D. W., & Leasure, S. M. (2002). "Trophic niche of North American great horned owls". Journal of Raptor Research. 36 (1): 58–65.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
- Glue, D. E. (1972). Bird prey taken by British owls. Bird Study, 19(2), 91-96.
- Comay, O., & Dayan, T. (2018). What determines prey selection in owls? Roles of prey traits, prey class, environmental variables, and taxonomic specialization. Ecology and evolution, 8(6), 3382-3392.
- Mahony, N. A. (2017). Evidence of Barred Owls (Strix varia) Depredating Nests of Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica) . The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 129(3), 641-644.
- Ray, J. D. (2014). Avian predation on Purple Martins nesting in artificial housing. Bull. Texas Ornith. Soc, 47, 1-2.
- Hamilton, G. D., & Martin, R. F. (1985). Investigator perturbation and reproduction of the Cliff Swallow. The Auk, 102(1), 167-170.
- Gill, R. A., Cox, W. A., & Thompson III, F. R. (2016). Timing of songbird nest predation as revealed by video surveillance. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 128(1), 200-203.
- Streby, H. M., Refsnider, J. M., Peterson, S. M., & Andersen, D. E. (2008). Barred owl predation on hermit thrush and ovenbird fledglings. Journal of raptor research, 42(4), 296-298.
- Belinsky, K. L. & Schmidt, K.A. (2011). Voices in the dark: Predation risk as a cost of dusk singing in a songbird. 96th ESA Annual Convention (Conference Paper).
- Schmidt, K. A., Rush, S. A., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2008). Wood thrush nest success and post‐fledging survival across a temporal pulse of small mammal abundance in an oak forest. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77(4), 830-837.
- Booth, S., Piper, C., Call, M., Buckardt, E., & Hand, M. (2016). First Place: Forest Bird Behavior in Response to the Calls of Native and Non-Native Owl Species at Cranberry Lake Biological Station in Clifton, NY.
- Mattsson, B. J. (2006). Louisiana waterthrush ecology and conservation in the Georgia piedmont (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).
- Anich, N. M., T. J. Benson, J. D. Brown, C. Roa, J. C. Bednarz, R. E. Brown, and J. G. Dickson (2020). Swainson's Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Sherry, T. W., R. T. Holmes, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten (2020). American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Dunning, Jr., J. B. 1993. CRC handbook of avian body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
- Sindelar, C. R. (1969). Barred owl feeds on crow. The Wilson Bulletin, 100-101.
- Fisher, A. K. (1893). The hawks and owls of the United States in their relation to agriculture (No. 3). US Department of Agriculture, Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy.
- Walters, E. L., E. H. Miller, and P. E. Lowther (2020). Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Terhune, T. M., Sisson, D. C., Palmer, W. E., Stribling, H. L., & Carroll, J. P. (2008). Raptor predation of Northern Bobwhite nests. Journal of Raptor Research, 42(2), 148-150.
- Campbell, R. W., Dawe, N. K., McTaggart-Cowan, I., Cooper, J. M., Kaiser, G. W., & McNall, M. C. E. (2005). Barred Owl Feeds on Band-tailed Pigeon. Wildlife Afield, 2 (1): 11-12.
- McAuley, D. G., D. M. Keppie, and R. M. Whiting Jr. (2020). American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Sidle, J. G. (1990). Recovery plan for the interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum). US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Parsons, K. C. and T. L. Master (2020). Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Telfair II, R. C. (2020). Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Mangelinckx, J. M., Brown, S. R., Allen, R. B., Sullivan, K., & Blomberg, E. J. (2020). Effects of forest characteristics on ruffed grouse nesting ecology in central Maine, USA. Wildlife Biology, 2020(1).
- Schroeder, M. A., E. J. Blomberg, D. A. Boag, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten (2020). Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Hingtgen, T. M., Mulholland, R., & Repenning, R. W. (1985). Habitat suitability index models: white ibis. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Yeldell, N. A., Cohen, B. S., Little, A. R., Collier, B. A., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2017). Nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys in a pyric landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(6), 1073-1083.
- Dodd, C.K. & Griffey, M.L. (1997). Scincella lateralis (ground skink) predation. Herpetol. Rev 28:89.
- Breckenridge, W. J. (1943). The life history of the black-banded skink Eumeces septentrionalis septentrionalis (Baird). American Midland Naturalist, 591-606.
- Conant, R. (1975). A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, Second Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Meshaka, Jr., W. E., & Layne, J. N. (2015). The herpetology of southern Florida. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 10(5), 1-353.
- Platt, D.R. (1969). Natural history of the hognose snakes Heterodon platyrhinos and Heterodon nasicus. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus.
- Ernst, C. H., & Ernst, E. M. (2011). Venomous Reptiles of the United States, Canada, and Northern Mexico: Crotalus (Vol. 2). JHU Press.
- Peterson, S.W. (1989). Barred owl eats hatchling Turtle. Mississippi Kite, 19 (2): 4-5.
- Wilson, D. S. (1991). Estimates of survival for juvenile gopher tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus. Journal of Herpetology, 25(3), 376-379.
- Woodward, B. D., & Mitchell, S. (1990). Predation on frogs in breeding choruses. The Southwestern Naturalist, 35(4), 449-450.
- Beane, J.C., & Pusser, L.T. (2013). Siren lacertina (Greater Siren). Natural predation. Herpetological Review, 44, 3.
- Homyack, J. A., Haas, C. A., & Hopkins, W. A. (2010). Influence of temperature and body mass on standard metabolic rate of eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). Journal of Thermal Biology, 35(3), 143-146.
- Gehlbach, F. R., Gordon, R., & Jordan, J. B. (1973). Aestivation of the salamander, Siren intermedia. American Midland Naturalist, 455-463.
- "Spring Peeper Profile". National Geographic Society. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
- Frost, D.R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J., Bain, R.H., Haas, A., Haddad, C.F.B., De Sá, R.O., Channing, A., Wilkinson, M., Donnellan, S.C., Raxworthy, C.J., Campbell, J.A., Blotto, B.L., Moler, P., Drewes, R.C., Nussbaum, R.A., Lynch, J.D., Green, D.M., Ward, C., Wheeler, W.C. (2006). "The Amphibian Tree of Life". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 297: 1–291. doi: 10.1206/0003-0090(2006)297[0001:TATOL]2.0.CO;2. hdl: 2246/5781.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
- Medina, S. L., Higley, M., & Dumbacher, J. P. (2018). Rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa) predation by Barred Owls (Strix varia). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 130(3), 780-783.
- Smith, D. G., Devine, A., & Devine, D. (1983). Observations of fishing by a Barred Owl. Journal of Field Ornithology, 88-89.
- Rhodes, L. (1974). Largemouth bass caught by a Barred Owl. Migrant, 45, 68-69.
- Harris, J. (1903). The habits of Cambarus. The American Naturalist, 37(441): 601-608.
- VanArman, P. G. (2011). Role of native crayfish, Procambarus alleni (Faxon) and Procambarus fallax (Hagen), in everglades food webs: a literature review and conceptual model. Florida Scientist, 100-125.
- Kilham, L. (1930). Stomach contents of Barred Owl. Auk, 47, 418.
- Portnoy, J. W., & Dodge, W. E. (1979). Red-shouldered Hawk nesting ecology and behavior. The Wilson Bulletin, 104-117.
- Mason, J.S. (2004). The reproductive success, survival, and natal dispersal of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in rural versus urban habitats in and around Charlotte, North Carolina. M.S. thesis, University of NC.
- Postupalsky, S., Paap, J. M. & Scheller, L. (1997). Nest sites and reproductive success of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in Michigan. Pages 325-337 in Biology and Conservation of Owls in the Northern Hemisphere: Second International Symposium. Edited by J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-190.
- Roble, S. M. (2013). Ophiophagy in Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), with the First Record of Eastern Wormsnakes (Carphophis amoenus) as Prey. Banisteria (41), 80-84.
- Whiklo, T. M., & Duncan, J. R. (2012). Occurrences of wing clapping behavior in Barred Owls (Strix varia). Journal of Raptor Research, 46(4), 413-416.
- Fuller, M. R., & Tester, J. R. (1973). Automatic radio tracking system for biotelemetry (No. CONF-730340-3; COO-1332-89).
- Baumgartner, F. M. (1939). Territory and population in the Great Horned Owl. Auk, 56: 274-282.
- Duc, P. Le. (1970). The nesting ecology of some hawks and owls in southeastern Minnesota. Loon 48:48-62.
- Craighead, J. J., & Craighead, F. C. (1969). Hawks, owls, and wildlife. Stackpole Books.
- Marti, C. D. (1974). Feeding ecology of four sympatric owls. The Condor, 76(1), 45-61.
- Earhart, C. M., & Johnson, N. K. (1970). Size dimorphism and food habits of North American owls. The Condor, 72(3), 251-264.
- Duxbury, J. M., & Holroyd, G. L. (1997). You are what you eat: stable isotope ecology of owl diets in Alberta, Canada. In In: Duncan, James R.; Johnson, David H.; Nicholls, Thomas H., eds. Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere: 2nd International symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-190. St. Paul, MN: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 148-154. (Vol. 190).
- Johnson, D. H. (1992). Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 125 p (Doctoral dissertation, MS thesis)
- Van Damme, L. M. (2005). Diet of the great horned owl in the Creston Valley, British Columbia, 1998–2005. Wildlife Afield, 2 (2): 73-78.
- Haskell, D. G., Knupp, A. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2001). Nest predator abundance and urbanization. In Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world (pp. 243-258). Springer, Boston, MA.
- Mazur, K. M., James, P. C., & Frith, S. D. (1997). Barred Owl (Strix varia) nest site characteristics in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT NC, 267-271.
- Smithers, B. L., Boal, C. W., & Andersen, D. A. (2005). Northern Goshawk diet in Minnesota: an analysis using video recording systems. Journal of Raptor Research, 39(3), 264.
- Eifrig, G. (1907). American Goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus) versus Man and Barred Owl. The Auk, 437-438.
- Shupe, S. (1985). Observations of the Barred Owl in southeastern Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review, 37-38.
- Stirling, D. (2011). Cooper’s Hawk Feeding on Barred Owl and Norway Rat in Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Afield 8(1):120-122.
- Neill, W. T. (1971). The Last of the Ruling Reptiles. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA.
- Elliott, K. (2006). Declining numbers of Western Screech-Owl in the lower mainland of British Columbia. British Columbia Birds, 14, 2-11.
- Acker, J. (2012). Recent trends in western screech-owl and barred owl abundances on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist, 93(2), 133-137.
- Trautman, M.B. (1940). The birds of Buckeye Lake, Ohio. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zoo.
- Ritchison, G., F. R. Gehlbach, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten (2020). Eastern Screech-Owl (Megascops asio), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Linkhart, B. D. and D. A. McCallum (2020). Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
- Leskiw, T. & Guiterrez, R.J. (1998). Possible Predation of a Spotted owl by a Barred owl. Western Birds, 29: 225-226.
- Graves, G. R., & Niemi, G. J. (2006). Possible Predation of a Great Gray Owl by a Barred Owl. Journal of Raptor Research, 40(2), 175.
- Sykes, P.W., Jr. (1987). Some aspects of the breeding biology of the Snail Kite in Florida. J. Field Ornithol. 58: 171–189.
- Johnson, E. I., Wolfe, J. D., & Hartgerink, J. E. (2012). Barred Owl consumes Sharp-shinned Hawk. The Journal of Louisiana Ornithology, 88, 21.
- Hertzel, A.X. (2003). Barred Owl takes Cooper's Hawk? Loon 75:58.
- Coulson, J. O., Coulson, T. D., DeFrancesch, S. A., & Sherry, T. W. (2008). Predators of the Swallow-tailed Kite in southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Journal of Raptor Research, 42(1), 1-12.
- Soucy, J. L. J. (1976). Barred Owl nest. North American Bird Bander 1:68-69.
- Mazur, K. M., James, P. C., & Frith, S. D. (1997). Barred Owl (Strix varia) nest site characteristics in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT NC, 267-271.
- Apfelbaum, S. I. & Seelbach, P. (1983). Nest Tree, Habitat Selection and Productivity of Seven North American Raptor Species Based on the Cornell University Nest Record Card Program. Raptor Research, 17(4), 97-113.
- James, R. D. (1984). Habitat management guidelines for cavity-nesting birds in Ontario. The Ministry.
- Bell, R. E. (1964). A sound-triangulation method for counting Barred Owls. The Wilson Bulletin, 292-294.
- McComb, W. C., & Noble, R. E. (1981). Microclimates of nest boxes and natural cavities in bottomland hardwoods. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 45(1), 284-289.
- Sattler, Helen Roney (1995). The Book of North American Owls. Clarion Books. p. 41. ISBN 0-395-60524-5.
- Robertson, W. B. (1959). Barred Owl nesting on the ground. The Auk, 76(2), 227-230.
- Houston, C. S. (1999). Barred Owl nest in attic of shed. Wilson Bulletin 111 (2): 272-273.
- Shackelford, C. E. (1996). Barred Owl nest in a natural hole in an earthen bank in eastern Texas. J. Raptor Res. 30 (1): 41.
- Johnson, D. H., & Follen, D. G. (1984). Barred Owls and nest boxes. Raptor Res, 18(1), 34-35.
- Johnson, D. H. (1987). Barred Owls and Nest Boxes—Results of a Five-Year Study In Minnesota. In Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls: Symposium Proceedings: February 3-7, 1987, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Vol. 142, No. 3, p. 128). Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
- Robinson, C. (2004). Barred Owl Mating Behaviour. Ontario Birds, 22 (3): 154-156.
- Howell, A. H. (1932). Florida bird life. New York: Coward-McCann.
- Murray, G. A. (1976). Geographic variation in the clutch size of seven owl species. Auk 93: 602-613.
- Henderson, G. (1933). Boldness of Barred Owls when danger threatens young. Wilson Bulletin 45:143.
- Grondahl, C., & Schumacher, J. (1995). The Owls of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department's Nongame Program.
- Hosking, E. J., Newberry, C. W., & Smith, S. G. (1945). Birds of the Night. Collins.
- Bird, D.M. & Wright, J.O. (1977). Apparent distraction display by a Barred Owl. Canadian Field-Naturalist 91: 176–177.
- Varchmin, T. E. M. (1977). The Behavioral and Physical Development of Barred Owl (Strix Varia) Nestlings in Illinois (Doctoral dissertation, Western Illinois University).
- Barred Owl Factsheet, Lee and Rose Warner Nature Center, 2008
- Hamer, T. E., Forsman, E. D., Fuchs, A. D., & Walters, M. L. (1994). Hybridization between barred and spotted owls. The Auk, 487-492.
- Klimkiewicz, M. K., & Futcher, A. G. (1987). Longevity Records of North American Birds: Coerebinae through Estrildidae (Registros de Longevidad de Aves de Norte América: Coerebinae a Estrildidae). Journal of Field Ornithology, 318-333.
- Lutmerding, J.A. & Love, A.S. (2016). Longevity records of North American birds. Version 2016.1. Laurel (MD): Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Bird Banding Laboratory.
- Orfinger, A. B., Helsel, D., & Breeding, S. F. (2018). Longevity of the Barred Owl (Strix varia Barton, 1799) from captivity. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 130(4), 1009-1010.
- Stocek, R. F., & Cartwright, D. J. (1985). Birds as nontarget catches in the New Brunswick furbearer harvest. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 13(3), 314-317.
- Gibson, M. J., Gibson, D. C., & Bardelmeier, D. G. (1998). Prey conquers predator: A case study-Barred owl dies from rodent-inflicted wound. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation, 21(3-4), 19-21.
- Lloyd, J. (2016). Cannibalism by a Barred Owl. Open.
- Hunter, D. B., McKeever, K., McKeever, L., & Crawshaw, G. (1987). Disease susceptibility in owls. In: Biology and conservation of northern forest owls (RW Nero, RJ Clark, RJ Knapton, and RH Hamre, Editors). USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-142. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 67-70.
- Lopes, H., Redig, P., Glaser, A., Armien, A., & Wünschmann, A. (2007). Clinical findings, lesions, and viral antigen distribution in great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) and barred owls (Strix varia) with spontaneous West Nile virus infection. Avian diseases, 51(1), 140-145.
- Lopes, H., Redig, P., & Glaser, A. (2007). Avian Dis.: Clinical findings, lesions, and viral antigen distribution in great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) and barred owls (Strix varia) with spontaneous West Nile virus infection. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, 21(3), 242-243.
- Ellis, A. E., Mead, D. G., Allison, A. B., Stallknecht, D. E., & Howerth, E. W. (2007). Pathology and epidemiology of natural West Nile viral infection of raptors in Georgia. Journal of wildlife diseases, 43(2), 214-223.
- Deem, S. L., Heard, D. J., & Fox, J. H. (1997). Avian pox in eastern screech owls and barred owls from Florida. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 33(2), 323-327.
- Brandão, J., Manickam, B., Blas-Machado, U., Cohen, E., Mejia-Fava, J., Divers, S., & Mayer, J. (2012). Productive thyroid follicular carcinoma in a wild barred owl (Strix varia). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 24(6), 1145-1150.
- James, S. B., Raphael, B. L., & Clippinger, T. (2000). Diagnosis and treatment of hepatic lipidosis in a barred owl (Strix varia). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, 14(4), 268-272.
- Brooks, D. E., Murphy, C.J. Queensberry, K. E. & Walsh, M.T. (1983). Surgical correction of a luxated cataractous lens in a barred owl. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 183: 1298-1299.
- Herman, C. M. (1944). The blood protozoa of North American birds. Bird-banding, 15(3), 89-112.
- Kinsella, J. M., Foster, G. W., & Forrester, D. J. (2001). Parasitic helminths of five species of owls from Florida, USA. Comparative parasitology, 68(1), 130-133.
- Mikaelian, I., Dubey, J. P., & Martineau, D. (1997). Severe hepatitis resulting from toxoplasmosis in a barred owl (Strix varia) from Québec, Canada. Avian diseases, 738-740.
- Niedringhaus, K. D., Burchfield, H. J., Elsmo, E. J., Cleveland, C. A., Fenton, H., Shock, B. C., Muise, C., Brown, J.D., Munk, B., Ellis, A., Hall, R. J. & Yabsley, M.J. (2019). Trichomonosis due to Trichomonas gallinae infection in barn owls (Tyto alba) and barred owls (Strix varia) from the eastern United States. Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, 16, 100281.
- Lindsay, D. S., Smith, P. C., Hoerr, F. J., & Blagburn, B. L. (1993). Prevalence of encysted Toxoplasma gondii in raptors from Alabama. The Journal of parasitology, 870-873.
- Pokras, M. A., Wheeldon, E. B., & Sedgwick, C. J. (1993). Trichomoniasis in owls: report on a number of clinical cases and a survey of the literature. Raptor biomedicine, 88-91.
- Verma, S. K., Von Dohlen, A. R., Mowery, J. D., Scott, D., Cerqueira-Cézar, C. K., Rosenthal, B. M., Dubey, J.P. & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Sarcocystis strixi n. sp. from a Barred Owl (Strix varia) Definitive Host and Interferon Gamma Gene Knockout Mice as Experimental Intermediate Host. Journal of Parasitology, 103(6), 768-777.
- Upton, S. J., Campbell, T. W., Weigel, M., & McKown, R. D. (1990). The Eimeriidae (Apicomplexa) of raptors: review of the literature and description of new species of the genera Caryospora and Eimeria. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68(6), 1256-1265.
- Telford, S. R., & Forrester, D. J. (1992). Morphological comparisons of the Plasmodium (Novyella) species reported from North American birds, with comments on a species from the barred owl Strix varia Barton. Systematic parasitology, 22(1), 17-24.
- Little, J. W., & Hopkins, S. H. (1939). Trematodes from the barred owl, Strix varia. Texas: Brachylaima mcintoshi. Harkema, 154-156.
- Van Cleave, H. J., & Pratt, E. M. (1940). A new species of the genus Centrorhynchus (Acanthocephala) from the barred owl. The Journal of Parasitology, 26(4), 297-300.
- Pence, D. B., Mollhagen, T., & Forrester, D. J. (1975). Tetrameres (Gynaecophila) strigiphila sp. n. from the Florida barred owl, Strix varia georgica, with notes on the status of the subgenus Gynaecophila (Nematoda: Tetrameridae). The Journal of Parasitology, 494-498.
- Chandler, A. C., & Rausch, R. (1947). A study of strigeids from owls in north central United States. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 66(3), 283-292.
- Little, J. W. (1975). Trematodes from the Barred Owl, Strix varia in Texas: Brachylaima mcintoshi Harkema, 1939, and Neodiplostomum reflexum Chandler and Rausch, 1947. In Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science (Vol. 55, pp. 154-156).
- Shoop, W. L., & Corkum, K. C. (1980). Tylodelphys immer Dubois 1961 (Trematoda: Diplostomidae) from the barred owl, Strix varia in Louisiana. Journal of Parasitology, 66(4), 701-702.
- Holt, J. A. (2005). New host records of chewing lice (Mallophaga) on birds in Florida III. Insecta Mundi, 19 (3): 186.
- Lewicki, K. E. (2013). Haemosporidian parasites of barred owls (Strix varia) and northern spotted owls (S. occidentalis caurina): Investigating the effects of an invasive species on parasite transmission and community dynamics (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).
- Lewicki, K. E., Huyvaert, K. P., Piaggio, A. J., Diller, L. V., & Franklin, A. B. (2015). Effects of barred owl (Strix varia) range expansion on Haemoproteus parasite assemblage dynamics and transmission in barred and northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Biological invasions, 17(6), 1713-1727.
- The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. "Barred Owl, Life History". allaboutbirds.
- Kirk, D. A., & Hyslop, C. (1998). Population status and recent trends in Canadian raptors: a review. Biological Conservation, 83(1), 91-118.
- Sauer, J. R., Link, W. A., Fallon, J. E., Pardieck, K. L., & Ziolkowski Jr, D. J. (2013). The North American breeding bird survey 1966–2011: summary analysis and species accounts. North American Fauna, 79(79), 1-32.
- Sauer, J. R., Schwartz S., & Hoover, B. (1996). The Christmas Bird Count homepage. Version 95.1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
- Smith, D. G., Ellis, D. H., & Millsap, B. A. (1990). Owls. Paper read at Proceedings of the southeast raptor management symposium and workshop.
- Bosakowski, T. (1994). Landsat reveals negative effect of forest fragmentation on Barred Owl distribution. Records of New Jersey Birds 20:66-70.
- McKay, K. J., Stravers, J. W., Peterson, P. C., Kohrt, C. J., Lundh, J. S., & Swenson, G. V. (2001). Long-term trends of raptors on CBCs in the Midwest. American Birds, 102, 15-21.
- Neese, M. R., Seitz, J., Nuzzo, J., & Horn, D. J. (2008). Population trends of raptors admitted to the Illinois Raptor Center, 1995-2005. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 101(3-4), 217-224.
- Jackson, L. S. (1996). Barred Owl. In The Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas., edited by L. S. Jackson, C. A. Thompson and J. J. Dinsmore, 188-189. Iowa City: Univ. of Iowa Press.
- Nicholson, C. P. (1997). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Tennessee. University Press of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
- Bosakowski, T. (1988). Barred Owl. Paper read at Proceedings of the Northeast Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop, at Syracuse, NY.
- James, P. C. (1993). Oldgrowth and owls: What have we learned? In Birds in the boreal forest., edited by D. H. Kuhnke. Edmonton: For. Canada.
- Cumming, S. G., Burton, P. J., Prahacs, S., & Garland, M. R. (1994). Potential conflicts between timber supply and habitat protection in the boreal mixedwood of Alberta, Canada: a simulation study. Forest Ecology and Management, 68(2-3), 281-302.
- Russell, M. S. (2008). Habitat selection of Barred Owls (Strix varia) across multiple scales in a boreal agricultural landscape in north-central Alberta. University of Alberta.
- Olsen, B., & Hannon, S. (2006). Short-term response of breeding barred owls to forestry in a boreal mixedwood forest landscape. Avian conservation and Ecology, 1(3).
- Van Ael, S. M. (1999). Modelling barred owl habitat in Northwestern Ontario (Strix varia, Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera, Pinus resinosa, Pinus strobus). M.S. Thesis, Lakehead Univ.
- Corbin, C. E. (2007). An assessment of barred owl (Strix varia) habitat suitability in Ocean Township, New Jersey, USA. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 24, 413-418.
- Bosakowski, T. & Smith, D. G. (1997). Distribution and species richness of a forest raptor community in relation to urbanization. Journal of Raptor Research, 31, 26-33.
- Allen, A. W. (1987). Habitat suitability index models: Barred Owl. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish Wildl. Ser. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.143):1-17.
- Wildlife Management. (1994). Habitat suitability index model for the Barred Owl (Strix varia). Winnipeg, MB: Version 1. The Manitoba Forest.
- Duncan, J. R. & Kearns, A.E. (1997). Habitat associated with Barred Owl (Strix varia) locations in southeastern Manitoba: a review of a habitat model. In Biology and conservation of owls of the northern hemisphere: 2nd international symposium, 1997 February 5-9, Winnipeg, MB., edited by J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson and T. H. Nicholls, 138-145. St. Paul, MN: Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-190. U.S. Dept. of Agric., For. Serv., North Central For. Exp. Stn.
- Rullman, S., & Marzluff, J. M. (2014). Raptor presence along an urban–wildland gradient: Influences of prey abundance and land cover. Journal of Raptor Research, 48(3), 257-272.
- Shonfield, J., & Bayne, E. (2017). The effect of industrial noise on owl occupancy in the boreal forest at multiple spatial scales. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 12(2).
- Siegfried, W. R., Abraham, R. L., & Kuechle, V. B. (1975). Daily temperature cycles in barred, great-horned and snowy owls. The Condor, 77(4), 502-506.
- Dingle, E. V. S. (1926). The Barred Owl (Strix varia varia). The Wilson Bulletin, 4-6.
- Deem, S. L., Terrell, S. P., & Forrester, D. J. (1998). A retrospective study of morbidity and mortality of raptors in Florida: 1988-1994. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 160-164.
- Follen, D. G. (1986). Barred Owl: a demonstration of focal concentration. Passenger Pigeon 48: 73.
- Baumgartner, F. M. (1934). Bird mortality on the highways. The Auk, 51(4), 537-538.
- Gagné, S. A., Bates, J. L., & Bierregaard, R. O. (2015). The effects of road and landscape characteristics on the likelihood of a Barred Owl (Strix varia)-vehicle collision. Urban Ecosystems, 18(3), 1007-1020.
- Linnell, K. E., & Washburn, B. E. (2018). Assessing Owl Collisions with US Civil and US Air Force Aircraft. Journal of Raptor Research, 52(3), 282-290.
- Havera, S. P., & Duzan, R. E. (1986). Organochlorine and PCB residues in tissues of raptors from Illinois, 1966–1981. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, 36(1), 23-32.
- Sundlof, S. F., Forrester, D. J., Thompson, N. P., & Collopy, M. W. (1986). Residues of chlorinated hydrocarbons in tissues of raptors in Florida. Journal of wildlife diseases, 22(1), 71-82.
- Ferguson, D. E. (1964). Some ecological effects of heptachlor on birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 28: 158-162.
- Albert, C. A., Wilson, L. K., Mineau, P., Trudeau, S., & Elliott, J. E. (2010). Anticoagulant rodenticides in three owl species from western Canada, 1988–2003. Archives of Environmental Contamination and toxicology, 58(2), 451-459.
- Wiens, J. D., Dilione, K. E., Eagles-Smith, C. A., Herring, G., Lesmeister, D. B., Gabriel, M. W., Wengert, G.M. & Simon, D. C. (2019). Anticoagulant rodenticides in Strix owls indicate widespread exposure in west coast forests. Biological Conservation, 238, 108238.
- Livezey, K.B. (2005). "Iverson (2004) on Spotted Owls and Barred Owls: comments on methods and conclusion". Journal of Raptor Research. 39: 102–103.
- Pearson R.R. & Livezey, K.B. (2007). "Spotted Owls, Barred Owls, and Late-Successional Reserves" (PDF). Journal of Raptor Research. 41 (2): 156–161. doi: 10.3356/0892-1016(2007)41[156:SOBOAL]2.0.CO;2.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- Pearson R.R. & Livezey, K.B. (2003). "Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of Spotted Owls and Barred Owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington". Journal of Raptor Research. 37: 265–276.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- Kelly, E.G., Forsman, E.D. & Anthony, R.G. (2003). "Are Barred Owls displacing Spotted Owls?" (PDF). The Condor. 105: 45. doi: 10.1650/0010-5422(2003)105[45:ABODSO]2.0.CO;2.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link)
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
- Peterson, A. T., & Robins, C. R. (2003). Using ecological‐niche modeling to predict barred owl invasions with implications for spotted owl conservation. Conservation Biology, 17(4), 1161-1165.
- Long, L. L., & Wolfe, J. D. (2019). Review of the effects of barred owls on spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 83(6), 1281-1296.
- Buchanan, J. B., Gutiérrez, R. J., Anthony, R. G., Cullinan, T., Diller, L. V., Forsman, E. D., & Franklin, A. B. (2007). Research and management options to address potential competitive interactions between barred owls (Strix varia) and spotted owls (S. occidentalis). Biological Invasions, 9, 679-691.
- Pearson, R. R., & Livezey, K. B. (2003). Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research, 37(4), 265-276.
- Buchanan, J., Fleming, T. & Irwin, L. (2004). A comparison of Barred and Spotted Owl nest-site characteristics in the Eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Journal of Raptor Research. 38. 231-237.
- Herter, D. R., & Hicks, L. L. (2000). Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research, 34(4), 279-286.
- Livezey, K.B. & Fleming, T.L. (2009). Effects of Barred Owls on Spotted Owls: The need for more than incidental detections and correlational analysis. Journal of Raptor Research. 41. 319-325.
- Mangan, A. O. (2018). Effects of habitat characteristics, weather and presence of Barred Owls (Strix varia) on occupancy dynamics and breeding propensity of Northern Spotted Owls (S. occidentalis caurina) in Mount Rainier National Park.
- Hamer, T. E., Forsman, E. D., & Glenn, E. M. (2007). Home range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. The Condor, 109(4), 750-768.
- Gutierrez, R. J., Cody, M., Courtney, S., & Franklin, A. B. (2007). The invasion of barred owls and its potential effect on the spotted owl: a conservation conundrum. Biological Invasions, 9(2), 181-196.
- Gremel, S. Barred Owl Displaces Northern Spotted Owl at Olympic. Natural Resources Year in Review, U.S. National Park System.
- Monahan, W. B., & Hijmans, R. J. (2007). Distributional dynamics of invasion and hybridization by Strix spp. in western North America. Ornithological Monographs, 55-66.
- Livezey, K. B., Root, T. L., Gremel, S. A., & Johnson, C. (2008). Natural range expansion of Barred Owls? A critique of Monahan and Hijmans (2007). The Auk, 125(1), 230-232.
- Peterson, A. Townsend & Robins, C. Richard (2003). "Using Ecological-Niche Modeling to Predict Barred Owl Invasions with Implications for Spotted Owl Conservation" (PDF). Conservation Biology. 17 (4): 1161–1165. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02206.x. Archived from the original on 2008-06-27.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown ( link)
- Van Lanen, N. J. (2010). Out with the old and in with the new?: investigating competition between Barred Owls (Strix varia) and Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in northwestern California with a playback experiment (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University. Libraries).
- Van Lanen, N. J., Franklin, A. B., Huyvaert, K. P., Reiser II, R. F., & Carlson, P. C. (2011). Who hits and hoots at whom? Potential for interference competition between barred and northern spotted owls. Biological Conservation, 144(9), 2194-2201.
- Interbreeding Threatens Rare Species, Experts Claim, Guynup, Sharon, National Geographic
- Kelly EG, Forsman ED (2004). "Recent records of hybridization between barred owls (Strix varia) and northern spotted owls (S. occidentalis caurina)". Auk. 121 (3): 806–810. doi: 10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121[0806:RROHBB]2.0.CO;2.
- Seamans, M. E., Corcoran, J., & Rex, A. (2004). Southernmost record of a spotted owl× barred owl hybrid in the Sierra Nevada. Western Birds, 35, 173-174.
- Funk, W. C., Mullins, T. D., Forsman, E. D., & Haig, S. M. (2007). Microsatellite loci for distinguishing spotted owls (Strix occidentalis), barred owls (Strix varia), and their hybrids. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7(2), 284-286.
- Haig, S. M., Mullins, T. D., Forsman, E. D., Trail, P. W., & Wennerberg, L. I. V. (2004). Genetic identification of spotted owls, barred owls, and their hybrids: legal implications of hybrid identity. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1347-1357.
- Hanna, Z. R., Dumbacher, J. P., Bowie, R. C., Henderson, J. B., & Wall, J. D. (2018). Whole-genome analysis of introgression between the spotted owl and barred owl (Strix occidentalis and Strix varia, respectively; Aves: Strigidae) in western North America. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 8(12), 3945-3952.
- Hanna, Z. R. (2017). Genomics of the Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) and Barred Owl (Strix varia) in Western North America (Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley).
- Diller, L. V., Dumbacher, J. P., Bosch, R. P., Bown, R. R., & Gutiérrez, R. J. (2014). Removing barred owls from local areas: techniques and feasibility. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(1), 211-216.
- Wiens, J. D., Dugger, K. M., Lewicki, K. E., & Simon, D. C. (2017). Effects of experimental removal of Barred Owls on population demography of Northern Spotted Owls in Washington and Oregon—2016 progress report (No. 2017-1040). US Geological Survey.
- Peery, Z., Wiens, D., Bown, R., Carlson, P. C., Dugger, K., Dumbacher, J., Franklin, A.B., Hamm, K.A., Higley, M., Keane, J.J. & Keane, J. J. (2018). Barred owl research needs and prioritization in California. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
- Durbin, Kathy (27 April 2007). NCCSP.org White House Proposes Killing Spotted Owl Rival, Owls at Odds. Archived 2009-06-01 at the Wayback Machine The Columbian..
- Johnson, D.H., White, G.C., Franklin, A.B., Diller, L.V., Blackburn, I., Pierce, D.J., Olson, G.S., Buchanan, J.B., Thrailkill, J., Woodbridge, B. & Ostwald, M. (2008). Study designs for Barred Owl removal experiments to evaluate potential effects on Northern Spotted Owls. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA and Yreka, CA. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
- "Brooklyn Museum". Collections: American Art: Barred Owl.
- "Barred Owls". Cornell Lab Bird Cams. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
- "Smyrna Owls". YouTube. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Barred owl.|
|Wikispecies has information related to Strix varia|
- Barred Owl – Strix varia – USGS Patuxent Bird Identification InfoCenter
- Barred Owl Species Account – Cornell Lab of Ornithology
- Barred Owl Bird Sound at Florida Museum of Natural History
- "Barred Owl media". Internet Bird Collection.
- Barred Owl photo gallery at VIREO (Drexel University)
- Interactive range map of Strix varia at IUCN Red List maps