View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
NatureServe
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Wisconsin
British Columbia
South Carolina
Yukon
California
New York
Pileated Woodpecker - Dryocopus pileatus
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank :
G5
State Rank :
S3
Agency Status USFWS :
MBTA
USFS :
BLM :
FWP SWAP :
SGCN3
PIF :
2
External Links
Listen to an Audio Sample
It seems your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio. Here is a to the audio instead
Copyright by Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, all rights reserved.
General Description
A crested, black woodpecker with wing span of about 70 cm. More or less uniformly black body with a white line extending down the neck from the bill to underwing area; white throat and line above the eye; black through the eye. Male with a vivid red crest extending from the bill to the nape and a red moustache mark extending from the bill. Female slightly smaller than male and with gray to brown forehead, red crest, and no red moustache mark. In all sex and age groups, a few gray-white bars can be found on the flanks. In flight, wings show black leading and trailing edges and white near the center of the wing close to the body. Juveniles have duller, more loosely textured feathers; primary 10 is longer, broader, and less pointed. Voice a loud, characteristic "
kuk-kuk-kuk-kuk " drumming a deep resonant roll that carries a kilometer or more (Bull and Jackson 1995).
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see
Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana. Diagnostic Characteristics
Except for the probably extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis ) of the southeastern United States and Imperial Woodpecker (C. imperialis ) of montane western Mexico, the Pileated Woodpecker is the largest woodpecker in North America. Large size and prominent red crest distinguish this woodpecker from all other woodpecker species in Montana.
Species Range
Montana Range
Range Descriptions
Year-round
Western Hemisphere Range
Range Comments
The Pileated Woodpecker is found across forested North America north of Mexico, from interior British Columbia south in the Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges to central California and south in the northern Rocky Mountains to northeastern Oregon, central Idaho and western Montana, and east across the southern third of Canada to Nova Scotia, and south throughout the U.S. east of the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast.
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 9651
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version)
Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density
Recency
SUMMER (Feb 16 - Dec 14)
Direct Evidence of Breeding
Indirect Evidence of Breeding
No Evidence of Breeding
WINTER (Dec 15 - Feb 15)
Regularly Observed
Not Regularly Observed
(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)
Migration
Permanent resident. Montane birds may move to lower elevations in autumn (Burleigh 1921, 1972).
Habitat
Late successional stages of coniferous or deciduous forest preferred, but also younger forests that have scattered, large dead trees (Bull and Jackson 1995). In forests of northwestern Montana dominated by western larch and Douglas-fir, Pileated Woodpecker nests (113 in 97 trees) were in western larch (52), ponderosa pine (18) black cottonwood (15), trembling aspen (7), western white pine (3), grand fir (1), and Douglas-fir (1). Nest-tree diameter at breast height (DBH) averaged 73 cm (29 in) and height averaged 29 m (95 ft). Roost trees were similar to nest trees; both typically were snags (81% and 78%, respectively) with broken tops (77% in both categories). Old-growth stands containing western larch were common nesting sites; old-growth ponderosa pine, black cottonwood and trembling aspen were locally important but more restricted in distribution (McClelland and McClelland 1999).
Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
How Associations Were Made
We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for
vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.
In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.
However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system,
even if point observations were associated with that system.
Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.
The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.
If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.
These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at:
mtnhp.org/requests ) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.
Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.
Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.
Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).
Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.
Literature Cited
Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
Commonly Associated with these Ecological SystemsForest and Woodland Systems
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Wetland and Riparian Systems
Occasionally Associated with these Ecological SystemsForest and Woodland Systems
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Food Habits
Diet consists primarily of wood-dwelling ants and beetles that are extracted from down woody material and from standing live and dead trees. Fruit and mast of wild nuts are eaten when available (Bull and Jackson 1995).
Ecology
Heartwood decay, which softens the wood, is important for enabling nest excavation in large larches by Pileated Woodpeckers (McClelland and McClelland 1999). BBS data indicate non-significant annual increases in numbers of 1.3% in Montana and 1.6% survey-wide during 1980-2009; there was also a non-significant annual increase in numbers of 1.4% in Montana and a significant annual increase of 2.2% survey-wide during 1999-2009. Montana CBC data for the winters 1979-80 to 2009-10 show a similar general increase in birds/party hour until 2005. High total count was 93 (0.058/party hour) on 11 counts in 2002-03; low total count was 12 (0.01/party hour) on 5 counts in 1979-80.
Reproductive Characteristics
Dead trees provide favored sites in which to excavate nest cavities. Only large diameter trees have enough girth to contain a nest. Reuse of a prior nest cavity is rare; two cases were reported in northwestern Montana: one cavity was used successfully in three different years (1975, 1976, 1990), another in four years (1978, 1979, 1980, 1983) (McClelland and McClelland 1999). Clutch size is typically 4 semi-glossy white, broadly oval eggs (Bull and Jackson 1995). Near Fortine, excavation of one nest cavity extended from early March to end of May, another was under construction on 28 April and the young left the nest on 5 July (Weydemeyer 1975). Egg records probably similar to Minnesota: early to late May.
Management
No known active management specific to Pileated Woodpecker is ongoing in Montana, although Pileated Woodpecker has been used as an indicator nesting species for old-growth. The USFS maintains management areas of 120 ha (300 acres) in old-growth forests for nesting and an additional 120 ha (300 acres) with > 5 snags/ha for foraging in Oregon and Washington (Bull and Jackson 1995). Recommendations for managing forests of western larch and Douglas-fir in northwestern Montana for timber harvest as well as hole-nesting birds (McClelland et al. 1979) include 1) providing 20-40 ha (50-100 acres) with a significant old-growth component of western larch, ponderosa pine, or black cottonwood within each 410 ha (1000 acres) of planning units to meet long-term nesting and feeding needs for each pair of Pileated Woodpeckers, 2) old growth should be well-scattered rather than grouped into adjacent areas, 3) old-growth units should be roughly square, 4) maintain old-growth in areas without roads or campgounds, 5) retain logs, snags, culls, and their replacements in the remaining 365 ha (900 acres) of planning unit to provide foraging substrate and nest sites, 6) no cutting of snags for firewood unless they are < 38 cm (15 inches) DBH; discourage use of larch, ponderosa pine, and black cottonwood. The Pileated Woodpecker in western larch forests of Montana is closely associated with forest values (fire, insects, and heartwood decay) often considered characteristic of "unhealthy" forest conditions (McClelland and McClelland 1999). Forest management that benefits Pileated Woodpeckers will need to recognize these components as important parts of a truely healthy forest ecosystem.
Stewardship Responsibility
Threats or Limiting Factors
Timber harvest has the most significant impact on habitat and populations. Removal of large-diameter live and dead trees, downed woody material, and of canopy closure eliminates nest and roost sites, foraging habitat, and cover.
References
Literature Cited AboveLegend:
Additional ReferencesLegend: Do you know of a citation we're missing? Dryocopus pileatus ). Species Account Number 148. The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved 3/25/2008 from The BirdsConservation Biology. 9 (5): 1041-1058.Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana . [Montana]: Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Web Search Engines for Articles on "Pileated Woodpecker"
Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
