View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
NatureServe
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Wisconsin
British Columbia
South Carolina
Yukon
California
New York
Broad-tailed Hummingbird - Selasphorus platycercus
Potential Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank :
G5
State Rank :
S4B
Agency Status USFWS :
MBTA; BCC10
USFS :
BLM :
FWP SWAP :
SGIN
PIF :
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 hummingbird of medium size, the Broad-tailed Hummingbird is fairly long-bodied, 9 cm (3.5 inches), and has a relatively long wingspan, 13 cm (5.25 inches). The female is generally the larger of the two sexes. The male has a rose-magenta throat patch, or gorget, while the throat of the female is white with varying amounts of speckling of faint bronze, iridescent green, or the rose-magenta feather color typical of the male's gorget. Both sexes have an iridescent green back and a long broad tail, the latter of which extends beyond the wingtips. The base of the outer tail feathers is rufous in color, beyond which a thin line of green is edged in a thicker band of black or purplish-black and terminated in white. The majority of the tail is green. The center of the male's breast is white, with green and buffy flanks, while the flanks of the female are primarily buff or pale cinnamon in color. The male has a line joining the white of the neck to white on the chin via a line at the back of the gorget traveling through the eye-ring. The eye-ring of the female is pale from which a pale white line travels behind the spotted cheeks to join the white throat (Calder and Calder 1992, Johnsgard 1986, Sibley 2000). The bill is black, iris brown, and feet dusky (Calder and Calder 1992).
Without a true song, vocalizations of the Broad-tailed Hummingbird are generally described as a "chitter, chitter, chitter" or "tiputi, tiputi," produced by the male to intruders into established territory, while females produce a similar sound when protecting nesting or feeding sites (Calder and Calder 1992, Sibley 2000). The long tapered wing tips on the male create a trill during flight. This is especially evident during territorial defense (and mating display) dives, which may descend from 40 feet. This sound is described as similar to the call of a Cedar Waxwing, or as a buzzy, insect-like trill (Johnsgard 1986, Sibley 2000).
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 broad, lengthy tail is the most notable feature that distinguishes the Broad-tailed Hummingbird from other hummingbird species. The Rufous Hummingbird has a tail primarily rufous in color, whereas the Broad-tailed Hummingbird's tail is dominated by green, black and white, with rufous coloration only the base of the outer tail feathers (Sibley 2000). The combination of the broad tail, overall larger size, and buff or buff-and-green flanks distinguish this from other hummingbird species common in the state.
Species Range
Montana Range
Range Descriptions Western Hemisphere Range
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 509
(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
All observations in Montana have occurred in May, June, or July (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012). No observations to indicate earlier spring dates or fall migration are available.
Habitat
No specific habitat information is available for Montana. Reported use in surrounding states (Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado) includes habitat similar to that found in Montana and may include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa ) and aspen (Populus tremuloides ) groves, as well as mountain meadows and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Johnsgard 1986).
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 SystemsGrassland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Food Habits
There is no information on food habits available for this species in the state. Data from studies in other parts of the species' range indicate the diet includes nectar (primary sources vary with location but typically includes red tubular flowers) and small insects and spiders obtained from flowers, foliage, or by hawking (Calder and Calder 1992). See Johnsgard (1983) for a review of nectar sources in different areas.
Ecology
No ecological information regarding this species exists for Montana. In other areas of the species' range, including Arizona, males defended breeding territory that averaged about 2040 square meters. In Colorado, males were observed displaying close to one another in apparent lek (see Johnsgard 1983). They may compete with Rufous Hummingbird for the same food resources in some areas.
Reproductive Characteristics
No information considered as direct evidence of breeding in Montana has been recorded.
Management
No management activities specific to the Broad-tailed Hummingbird in Montana are documented.
References
Literature Cited AboveLegend: Selasphorus platycercus ). Species Account Number 016. 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 database
Additional ReferencesLegend: Do you know of a citation we're missing? Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana . [Montana]: Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Web Search Engines for Articles on "Broad-tailed Hummingbird"
Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
