Olive-Sided Flycatcher in Western North America
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I I OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER I IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA I Status Review I I I I I I I I I Preparedby: AvifaunaNorthwest Bob Altman I 18000 SE Vogel Road Boring, Oregon 97009 I Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I Oregon State Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 I Portland, Oregon 97266 July 1997 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY I The olive-sided flycatcher is perhaps the most recognizable of our North American forest flycatchers, yet probably alsothe least known. Its summer domain is the vast coniferous forests spread out over I North America where it occurs from sea level along the Pacific Coast to spruce forest at 3,350 meters in theRocky Mountains. The presence of the olive-sided flycatcher in these forests is announced by the prominent and resounding three-syllable song "Quick, three beers". Once visually located, the I image is that of a somewhat bulkyflycatcher perched erect and motionless at the top of a tall tree or snag except when singing its emphatic song or darting out to capture flying insects. I Olive-sided flycatcher breeding habitat in western North America is montane and northern coniferous forest. Wrthinthese forests, it occurs primarily 1) within forest bums where snags and tall, residual live trees remain; 2) near water along the wooded shores of streams, lakes, rivers, beaver ponds, I bogs, and muskegs, often where standingdead trees are present; 3) at forest edges near natural (e.g., · · meadows, canyons) or man-made openings in the forest, often at the juxtaposition of late and early . successional forest; and 4) in natural or man-made open or semi-open forest stands with a low I percentage of canopy cover, rather than in the forest interior or beneath the forest canopy. The presence of prominent trees or snags, which serve as foraging and singing perches, is a common I feature of all nesting habitat. Studieson olive-sided flycatcher naturalhistory and ecology are lacking, and much of our knowledge about the species is anecdotal or incidentally acquired from multi-species projects. It is a I monogamous breeder producing 3-4 eggs per clutch and one clutch per pair per year. Re-nesting after a failedclutch regularly occurs. Nests are open-cup structures placed at varying heights above I the ground and well out from the trunk of a coniferous tree in a cluster of needles and twigs on a horizontal branch. Nest areas are aggressively defended by both members of the pair, and limited banding data suggests strong sitefidelity. Nesting territories are relatively large for a passerine bird, I up to 40-45 ha per pair, but most often in the range of 8-20 ha per pair. The olive-sided flycatcher preys almost exclusively on flying insects, including bees, wasps, flying I ants, beetles, moths, and dragonflies. It often forages from a high, prominent perch at the top of a snag or the dead tip or uppermost branch of a live tree where it flies out (sallying or hawking) to snatch a flying insect,and then returns to thesame or another prominent perch. Its foraging behavior I as anair -sallying insectivore requires exposed perches and unobstructed air space, thus tall trees or snags and broken canopy provide a better foraging environment than closed canopy forest. I The olive-sidedflycatcher is a regularly occurring breeding species throughout much of the coniferous forest inwestern North America, although data indicate declining populations in most of these same areas. Populationtrends basedon BreedingBird Survey data show highly significant declines for all I continental (North America), national{United States and Canada), and regional (eastern and western North America) analyses, and for most state and physiographic region analyses. Two salient characteristicsof the declines are: 1) declines are greatest in the core of the species range (i.e., where I the species has its highest abundance), and 2) the rate of decline is increasing in the last 15 years. I I I Despite the magnitude and pervasiveness of population declines, protection through regulatory status I is lacking. This may be due to the fact that 1) it is a widespread species that occurs in an abundant and widespread habitat type (conifer forest), unlike many declining species that have limited ranges and/or occur in discrete patches of declining habitat (e.g., wetland or grassland associated bird I species); 2) it is highly detectable due to its conspicuous song and perching habits, and its high level of vocal detectabilityat relativelylarge distances ensures recognition where it is present; and 3) it has always been thinly distributed due to its relatively large territory size, thus declines may not be as I apparent to the casual observer. Several factors have been suggested as contributing to the population declines. Initial speculation I has focused on habitat alteration/loss on the wintering grounds based on the relative consistency of population declines throughout the breeding range of the species. The principal wintering range of the olive-sided flycatcher is Panama and the Andes Mountains of north and western-South A.riterica I from northwestern Venezuela south through Ecuador to southeastern Peru and northern Bolivia. Wintering habitat is generally similar to that on the breeding grounds - forest edge and forest · · openings, especially where scattered tall trees or snags are present. It occurs. primarily in mature _ . evergreen forest, particularlylow- to-mid elevation (500-2,000 meters) montane forest. The low-to- mid elevation montane forests of the Andes Mountains have been deforested more extensively than most other forest types in the neotropics, and are considered to be of high conservation concern for nearctic migrants in South America. Inter-Andeanvalleys are almost completely deforested, and 85 percent of the montane forests have been altered. The population declinesexperienced by the olive-sided flycatcher may also be due to various factors on the breeding grounds. These include habitat loss through conversion to non-forest and younger I successional stages, alteration of habitat from forest management practices (e.g., clearcutting, fire suppression), availability and acquisition of food resources, and reproductive impacts from nest predation or parasitism. During the past 50 years, forest management on the breeding grounds has I resulted in anincrease in forest openings and edge habitat which has seemingly increased habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher. However, there is speculation that this dichotomy of increased habitat availability and declining populations may indicate that the occurrence of the olive-sided flycatcher I in harvestedforest represents an "ecological trap". Inthis scenario, the habitat may appear suitable, but success in terms of reproduction and/or survival is poor due to factors such as limited food resources, predation, or parasitism. I It has also been speculatedthat the olive-sided flycatcher may have e:volved to depend on early post I firehabitat, andit has likely been negatively affected by fire-control policies of the past 50-100 years. The ability of forest management practices thatcreate forest openings and edge habitat (e.g., selective cutting, clearcutting) to mimic natural disturbanceregimes caused by forest fires has been questioned. I Habitat created by these types of forest management may provide only the appearance of early post fire habitat, but be lacking in some attributes or resources required by olive-sided flycatchers. I The effect of habitat loss/alteration on declining olive-sided flycatcher populations may be exacerbated by three factors related to the speciesbiology: 1) individual birds/pairs require large areas of habitat on both the breeding and wintering grounds; 2) it has a high potential for sensitivity to I habitat alteration due to foragingspecialization; and 3) there are indications that it may exhibit strong I I I I site fidelity on both the breeding and wintering grounds, which fuay make it less adaptable to habitat loss. It also has the greatest migration distance among the 32 species of North American flycatchers; thus, is highly vulnerable for an extended period (1-2 months) to all adverse factors associated with I migration (e.g., habitat loss, predation, availability of food resources). Data are unavailable to correlate breeding and wintering locations of a specific population, which I precludes our ability to assess the relative importance of changes in wintering and breeding habitats on local or regional populations. For example, some olive-sided flycatcher populations may be relatively unaffectedby forest management practices on the breeding grounds, but these populations I may winter in areas where tropical deforestation has been particularly extensive. At this time, only generalrange-wide factorsin wintering habitats (i.e., tropical deforestation) have been implicated as contributing to declines in the species population. However, examples from other declining species I wintering in the same forests indicate that some problems may also be occurring on the breeding grounds. Thus, conservation efforts for the olive-sided flycatcher may require not only preservation I of montane tropical forests in Andean South America, but also protection of breeding habitat throughout North America. .. I Development of management and conservation strategies for the olive-sided flycatcher is hampered by a lack of natural history information on the species, and an absence of knowledge of factors adversely affecting the species. Until these types of data are