View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
NatureServe
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Wisconsin
British Columbia
South Carolina
Yukon
California
New York
Olive-sided Flycatcher - Contopus cooperi
Native Species Global Rank :
G4
State Rank :
S4B
(see State Rank Reason below)
Agency Status USFWS :
MBTA; BCC10
USFS :
BLM :
PIF :
1
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.
State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Species is apparently secure and not at risk of extirpation or facing significant threats in all or most of its range. Short-term declines have been observed.
Details on Status Ranking and Review
Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi ) Conservation Status Review
Range Extent
Score F - 20,000-200,000 km squared (about 8,000-80,000 square miles)
Comment 169,750 square Kilometers from Natural Heritage Program range maps
Long-term Trend
Score U - Unknown. Long-term trend in population, range, area occupied, or number or condition of occurrences unknown
Comment Significant changes in forest management, including fire regimes have occurred since European settlement. This appears to have had a negative impact on populations, but the extend is unknown.
Short-term Trend
Score D - Declining. Decline of 10-30% in population, range, area occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences
Comment Breeding Bird Survey Data are of moderate credibility, and provide weak support for a declining trend in observed individuals over the last decade for Montana. Trends for the Northern Rocky Mountains Region are of better quality and show significant decli
Threats
Score E - Localized substantial threat. Threat is moderate to severe for a small but significant proportion of the population or area.
Comment Loss of habitat due to forest management practices such as fire, and logging including salvage logging
Severity Moderate - Major reduction of species population or long-term degradation or reduction of habitat in Montana, requiring 50-100 years for recovery.
Comment Recovery of forest structure might take greater than 50 years
Scope Low - 5-20% of total population or area affected
Comment Conservatively 5-20% of habitat
Immediacy High - Threat is operational (happening now) or imminent (within a year).
Comment Ongoing
Intrinsic Vulnerability
Score C - Not Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance; or species has high dispersal capability such that extirpated populations soon become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).
Comment Species nests at least once per year. Interannually variability due to changes in prey density indicate that species can disperse between areas of suitable habitat.
Environmental Specificity
Score C - Moderate. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or other abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species but some key requirements are scarce in the generalized range of the species within the area of interest.
Comment Species can be found in a diversity of montane and boreal forests throughout the west, but appears to select post-fire habitat over other forest habitat types when available
Raw Conservation Status Score
Score
3.5 + 0 (geographic distribution) + 0 (environmental specificity) + -0.25 (short-term trend) + 0 (threats) = 3.25
General Description
The Olive-sided Flycatcher is a rather large (18 to 20 cm) flycatcher, with a large head and a proportionately short tail. Plumage is brownish-olive above (browner on juveniles) with a dull white to yellowish throat, breast, and belly. Streaked or mottled patches on the sides of the breast are dark and distinct from the lighter center. Sexes are similar, but may be separable in the hand by wing chord length, 96 to 109 mm (females) and 103 to 117 mm (males) (Howell et al. 1987).
The song is a loud, ringing whistle, rather easily imitated, delivered by the male generally from the top of an upright dead snag or living tree such as balsam fir (
Abies balsamea ), spruce (
Picea spp.), tamarack (
Larix laricina ), or other pointed tree, often the tallest in the area. Most observers use the mnemonic "
quick-three-beers " (Peterson 1980) to recall the song. The song is often heard as a foreshortened "
free beer ." The call is a trebled "
pip-pip-pip " (Peterson 1980). Oologist V. Burtch told Bent (1942) that these notes "...seemed to be made mostly by the female in the vicinity of the nest and that all the nests he found were located after hearing these notes."
Head (1903) described another vocalization as being "more like a twitter, and was uttered during excitement, chiefly when the young were learning to fly. It sounded like "
why, why, why ," repeated very rapidly a number of times. Sometimes this note was given as a prelude to the real song..." Bent (1942) also describes a two-syllable song, similar to the Eastern Wood-pewee's (
Contopus sordidulus) in quality: "The notes may be whistled as '
too-wee ' in ascending pitch, slightly suggesting the [Rufous-sided] towhee's (
Pipilo erythrophthalmus) notes."
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
The most distinguishing features to separate this species from other flycatchers are the song and white patches on the rump, when exposed. Otherwise, in the hand, Olive-sided Flycatchers can be separated from the wood-pewees (Contopus sordidulus and C. virens ) by the longer (96 to 117 mm) wing, and from Greater Pewee (C. pertinax ) by plumage (white tuffs on the sides of the rump), tail length (63 to 74 mm), and by the horn-colored to blackish lower mandible.
Species Range
Montana Range
Range Descriptions Western Hemisphere Range
eBird Occurrence Map
Click the map for more info.
Courtesy of
and
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 6842
(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
Arriving in May, the Olive-sided Flycatcher can be found in Montana through the summer months. With the longest migration route of any flycatcher to breed in North America, Olive-sided Flycatchers depart early, leaving for their wintering grounds in August (Altman 2000, Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012). One September record exists of an individual reported southwest of Helena in 1991 (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012). Area specific information from the Bozeman area indicates fall migration dates from August 25 to September 10.
Habitat
A species that generally breeds in the montane and boreal forests in the mountains of western North America, Olive-sided Flycatchers are highly adapted to the dynamics of a landscape frequently altered by fire. They are more often associated with post-fire habitat than any other major habitat type, but may also be found in other forest openings (clear cuts and other disturbed forested habitat), open forests with a low percentage of canopy cover, and forest edges near natural meadows, wetlands, or canyons (Hutto and Young 1999, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Their affinity for forested edges near water may be a product of a higher presence of flying insects in these areas (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). They are a species common in spruce and aspen (Populus tremuloides ), but are uncommon in mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa ), pine-oak (Pinus-Quercus ), and cedar-hemlock (Cupressaceae-Tsuga ) forests, and rarely present in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ) or pinyon-juniper (Hejl et.al. 1995, Casey 2000).
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
Grassland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
Occasionally Associated with these Ecological SystemsRecently Disturbed or Modified
Food Habits
No information is availablae regarding the food habits of Olive-sided Flycatchers in Montana. Information from other studies in the species' range state foraging takes place primarily by hovering or sallying forth, concentrating on prey available via aerial attack. They generally launch these aerial attacks from a high, exposed perch atop a tree or snag. Like others in the flycatching guild, this bird is a passive searcher, looking for easy to find prey, but is also an active pursuer, attacking prey difficult to capture (Eckhardt 1979, Terres 1980). Apis mellifera ), found in 16 stomachs (25% of the entire sample). Other insects included beetles, Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (bugs), grasshoppers, moths, and dragonflies. In a study of the arthropod food of 25 species of forest-inhabiting birds in California from 1962-68, Otvos and Stark (1985) found that Coleoptera (beetles) were the most common food of the Olive-sided Flycatcher.
Ecology
Currently no ecological information exists for Olive-sided Flycatchers in Montana. In other areas in the species' range, ecological information indicates they are usually territorial in nonbreeding areas (Stiles and Skutch 2003) and may display strong year-to-year site fidelity on the breeding (Altman 1997) and wintering grounds (Marshall 1988, Altman 1997). In a study of 16 insectivorous, aerially-foraging neotropical flycatcher species that are seasonally sympatric in the humid Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica, Sherry (1984) found that migrants are more opportunistic while wintering than the year-round residents.
Reproductive Characteristics
Records indicate direct evidence of breeding in Montana in July and August, with breeding behavior starting in May shortly after spring arrival (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012). Egg dates are probably similar to those for Colorado: June 16 to July 20. Johnsgard (1986) notes that fledged young have been reported in Jasper National Park as early as July 1, suggesting earlier nesting dates are possible in Montana than have definitively been recorded. The usual clutch size of three is confirmed in the state (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012). Usnea , and is lined with finer plant materials and hair. Picea glauca ) (14 nests), jack pine (Pinus banksiana ) (two nests), and balsam fir (one nest) (James and Peck 1987). Adirondack nests were built on an outer branch from 7.6 to 13.7 meters high in balsam fir or spruce (Peterson 1988). Even though the nest is bulky, it is well concealed and rather difficult to find. Clutches of three (rarely four) eggs are laid (Harrison 1978). Egg dates are June 6 to 24 in Ontario (James and Peck 1987), June 9 to 27 in New York, and June 14 in Vermont (Fichtel 1985). This bird is single-brooded and has an incubation period of 14 to 17 days in New York. Incubation is by the female. Nestlings leave the nest at 15 to 19 days (Harrison 1978), with New York State records of unfledged juveniles on June 22 and fledglings from July 10 to 24. Although young rarely fledge before the end of July, flycatchers can become very difficult to find as singing begins to slow during late June (Peterson 1988).
Management
Management actions in Montana are currently limited by lack of conclusive information about the specific relationship between species' habitat use and reproductive success. It is unclear if stand replacing fire regimes or fires of less magnitude provide more appropriate habitat for successful reproduction (Casey 2000). In areas where fire suppression has reduced the heterogeneity of the forest, fire management techniques that promote a more historic pattern of disturbance would benefit the species (Casey 2000). Several other management techniques to benefit the species include retaining forested habitat around riparian and wetland habitats and retaining snags and large trees post-fire. Select logging practices that retain medium to large trees with a relatively open canopy closure may also provide appropriate habitat (Casey 2000).
Stewardship Responsibility
References
Literature Cited AboveLegend: Contopus cooperi ). Species Account Number 502. The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved 3/25/2008 from The Birds of North America Online databaseContopus borealis. ) Pp. 244-245 in R.F. Andrle and J.R. Carroll, editors. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Additional ReferencesLegend: Do you know of a citation we're missing? Contopus borealis. ) Pages 170-171 in S. B. Laughlin and D. P. Kibbe, editors. The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. 456 pp.Conservation 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 "Olive-sided Flycatcher"
Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
