View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
NatureServe
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Wisconsin
British Columbia
South Carolina
Yukon
California
New York
Common Poorwill - Phalaenoptilus nuttallii
Potential Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank :
G5
State Rank :
S4B
(see State Rank Reason below)
Agency Status USFWS :
MBTA
USFS :
BLM :
FWP SWAP :
SGIN
PIF :
3
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: The Macaulay Library at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, all rights reserved.
State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Although species lacks monitoring data, populations are assumed to be stable, habitats seem to be intact, and threats are not believed to be significant at the present time.
Details on Status Ranking and Review
Common Poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii ) Conservation Status Review
Population Size
Score U - Unknown
Comment Unknown.
Range Extent
Score G - 200,000-2,500,000 km squared (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Comment 305,938 square kilometers based on Natural Heritage Program range maps that appear on the Montana Field Guide
Area of Occupancy
Score U - Unknown
Comment Unknown.
Long-term Trend
Score E - Relatively Stable (±25% change)
Comment Open pine savannah habitats are stable within +/- 25% since European arrival.
Short-term Trend
Score U/E - Unknown, but believed to be stable with population, range, area occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences unchanged or remaining within ±10% fluctuation
Comment No trend data available due to lack of adequate survey/monitoring, but assumed to be relatively stable.
Threats
Score G - Slightly threatened. Threats, while recognizable, are of low severity, or affecting only a small portion of the population or area.
Comment Habitat loss and vehicle collisions are probably the greatest threats to the species in Montana.
Severity Low - Low but nontrivial reduction of species population or reversible degradation or reduction of habitat in area affected, with recovery expected in 10-50 years.
Comment Pine savannah and grasslands seem capable of recovery in 50 years.
Scope Low - 5-20% of total population or area affected
Comment Unlikely that >20% of savannahs or grasslands would be lost in next 15 years.
Immediacy Low - Threat is likely to be operational within 5-20 years.
Comment Ongoing, but small.
Intrinsic Vulnerability
Score B - Moderately Vulnerable. Species exhibits moderate age of maturity, frequency of reproduction, and/or fecundity such that populations generally tend to recover from decreases in abundance over a period of several years (on the order of 5-20 years or 2-5 generations); or species has moderate dispersal capability such that extirpated populations generally become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).
Comment Moderately Vulnerable. Species exhibits moderate age of maturity, frequency of reproduction, and/or fecundity such that populations generally tend to recover from decreases in abundance within 5-20 years or 2-5 generations. Species has good dispersal capabilities such that extirpated populations generally become reestablished through natural recolonization.
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 Moderate Generalist. Uses a broad variety of grassland/savannah cover types.
Raw Conservation Status Score
Score
3.5 + 0.0 (geographic distribution) + 0.0 (environmental specificity) + 0.0 (long-term trend) + 0.75 (threats) = 4.25
General Description
Small (19-21 cm long and 31-58 g). Head large and flattened, large eyes, small bill with immense gape. Short and rounded tail and wings. Plumage soft brown and gray streaked with black and white; underside is paler. Broad white band crosses dark throat and chest. Rectrices in males have white tips, buff colored in females. Plumage does not change seasonally. Noted for its distinctive “poor-will” call. (Woods et al. 2005)
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
Distinguished from the Common Nighthawk by its lack of white wing stripe, presence of rictal bristles, and white or buff colored tail tips. (Woods et al. 2005)
Species Range
Montana Range
Range Descriptions Western Hemisphere Range
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 1198
(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
Birds arrive at northern areas of distribution from late April-late May, and usually depart in September (Woods et al. 2005); this timing accords well with observational records in Montana.
Habitat
Dry, open, grassy or shrubby areas; high rolling prairies, semi-arid flats, and rocky foothills (Woods et al. 2005).
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
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Sparse and Barren Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
Occasionally Associated with these Ecological SystemsForest and Woodland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Food Habits
Night-flying insects (Woods et al. 2005).
Ecology
Known for its ability to use torpor, the Common Poorwill is the only bird known to spend long periods of the winter completely inactive. Also employs highly efficient mechanisms for tolerating the extreme heat of its prairie and desert environments. Nocturnal and cryptic; hence, can be missed in surveys. (Woods et al. 2005)
Reproductive Characteristics
Eggs are usually laid on bare ground, occasionally on a hard gravel surface, flat rock, or a bed of pine needles, often partially shaded. Always appears to be 2 eggs per clutch (Woods et al. 2005). Egg dates are probably similar to those for Colorado: May 20 to June 14.
Management
Breeders may move eggs or young short distances in response to disturbance (Woods et al. 2005).
Stewardship Responsibility
References
Literature Cited AboveLegend:
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.Phalaenoptilus nuttallii ). Species Account Number 032. 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
Web Search Engines for Articles on "Common Poorwill"
Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
