DOCSLIB.ORG

ADDITIONAL NOTES on the FLYCATCHERS of EASTERN NORTH AMERICA by ALLAN R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ADDITIONAL NOTES on the FLYCATCHERS of EASTERN NORTH AMERICA by ALLAN R Bird-Banding 190] NedK. Johnso't& July,1970 EL SAL VA DOR CHALATENANGO. Los Esesmiles,8700 feet; San Josedel Sacare, 3600 feet. MOI{AZON. N slopeMr. Cacaguatique,4600 feet. SAN MIGUEL. Mt. Cacaguatique, 3500 feet. HONDURAS MOSQUITIA. Intibuca, Esperanza, 5400 feet; Intibuca, 4 mi. SE Esper- a•za, 5900 feet. TEGUCIGALPA. Alto Cantoral; Cerro Cantoral; D.C.: i mi. NW Zam- breno; Monte Redondo. YORO. Portillo Grande, ¾oro, 4000 feet. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE FLYCATCHERS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA By ALLAN R. P•rs A• W•s•¾ E. LAN¾ON Bandors and, to some extent, museum workers have apparently found the paper by Phillips, Howe, and Lanyon (1966) to be a useful guide to the identification of flycatchers, particularly the genus Empidonax, in easternNorth America. When the need for a third printing developedthis year, it was suggestedthat we might wish to incorporatenew data and perhapsmake correctionsin the original text before reprinting. To avoid possiblebibliographic problems, we recommendedthat the 1966 paper be reprinted in its original form and that any further remarks appear in this supplement. Our principal objectives here are to provide a more comprehensive treatment of the five western species of Empidonax that were not included in the 1966 key, to add another Myiarchus flycatcher for considerationby easternbandors, to clarify the status of certain tyrannids in Florida, particularly southern Florida, and to com- ment further on the general problems of flycatcher identification that continue to plague bandors. Our discussionof such problems has been prompted by correspondenceand conversationswith a FlycatchersofEastern •Vor•h America [191 number of banders, more than we can acknowledgeindividually, but nevertheless we are grateful to all who have taken the time to pass along to us their commentson the 1966 paper. Dr. Eugene Eisenmann has been most helpful with suggestionsfor improving and clarifying our presentation here. Some banders have informed us that they believe the 1966 key to be too formidable, and they continue to searchfor a more simpli- fied alternative. We contend that there is no "simple alternative" to the correct identification of difficult groupslike Empidonax, and those who hopefully professotherwise are only creating a false sense of security that will foster and perpetuate the sametypes of dubious identifications that have characterized banding schedulesin the past. We believe that, with a little advance study, use of the 1966 key should not be unduly onerous. It is gratifying to note that, as indicated by the banding summariesof Operation Recovery stations in recent years, the number of "unidentified Empidonax" banded and releasedis on the decline. There could be two explanations:(1) banders have developed a greater expertise in identifying these birds, or (2) they are becoming increasingly reluctant to place a band on a bird that defies specific identification. Both of these trends, if real, are desirable and commendable. Every banding station must expect the occasional Empidonax that cannot be identified with certainty and these should be releasedunbanded or, if circumstanceswarrant, shouldbe collectedand referredto special- ists for study. An illustration, though obviouslyextreme, is a speci- men collected at the Kalbfleisch Field Research Station in Hunting- ton (Long Island), New York, on 28 August 1968, by JosephWun- derle, Jr., who recognizedit as being unlike any of the many Empi- donax that he had processed. Its characterscould not be reconciled with the key in the 1966 paper, nor could it be matched with any of the referencespecimens of western speciesin the genus. Sub- sequently both Phillips and Dr. Ned K. Johnson examined the specimen and independently agreed that it was an abnormally pigmented Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (E. fiaviventris) almost if not entirely lacking in yellow pigments. No bander could have been expectedto identify this individual properly. We shouldlike to reiterate the plea madein the 1966 paper for the use of multiple characters and the avoidance of undue emphasis upon single characters. Many banders regard as unnatural and cumbersomethe conceptof "the best fit" of a complexof characters, yet it is this desireto base an identification on "one good character" that has led to most of the problems,particularly with Empidonax. We are grateful to Dr. Kenneth C. Parkes for calling to our atten- tion a ease in point--a specimencollected on 1 October 1969 by Robert Leberman of the Powdermill Nature Reserve in western Pennsylvania. Leberman was impressed with the fact that the yellow pigment in this specimenwas concentratedin the area just above the dark chestband, unlike any of the hundreds of individuals that had been processedat Powdermill, and he was unable to key it out to his complete satisfaction. Lanyon subsequentlyexamined 192] AllanR. Phillipsand Wesley E.Lanyon Bird-BandingJuly, 1970 the specimen and had no hesitancy in calling it • Yellow-bellied Flycatcher and was able to match it with a nearly identical speci- men taken at the Kalbfleisch Station. Some of the characters were admittedly close to the extremes in the range of variation for the speciesas we know it at Kalbfleisch. For example,the 10th primary was shorter th•n the 5th by 0.5 mm. Only one out of 94 Yellow- bellled Flycatchers processedat Kalbfleisch ha.shad the 10th pri- mary shorter than the 5th, and in that instance the difference was recorded as 0.5 mm. also. In the 1966 key we allowed for this rare deviation from the norm for the species,as follows: "10th primary nearly always equal to or longer than the 5th" (italics introduced here.). We identify our term "nearly always" as being roughly equiwlent to the statement that "98 out of 100 individuals may be expectedto be so characterized". The use of a complex of characters (6th primary slightly cut out, short wing length, yellow wash just above the dark chest band, formula B -- •-3.4 mm.) provided •n unequivocal identification of this particular specimen, whereas the use of • single character, such as wing shape, could have led to confusion. For •nother example of the danger inherent in single character identifications, we call attention to • specimen of Acadian Fly- catcher (Empidonax viresce•s) netted •t the Kalbfleisch Station on 31 May 1969. The speciesis now a rare migrant on Long Island and this individual, the first record for the station, was photo- graphed for coloration of soft parts (flesh-coloredmouth lining, not orange; gray t•rsi, not black) and later collected as • voucher specimen. The fact that the plumage of the throat was conspic- uously tinged with yellow might well have influenced some banders (and field observers) to identify the bird as • Yellow-bellied Fly- catcher. We pointed out in the 1966 paper that most Acadian Fly- catchers return in the spring with the throat white, but that some spring sight recordsof Yellow-bellied Flycatchers, suspectbecause of their early d•tes, might well be of yellow-throated Acadians. The Kalbfleisch specimen,identified on the basis of a complex of char- •cters (long wing length, wing shape, color of mouth lining and of tarsi), reinforcesthis belief •nd •mplifies our concern over the use of single characters. We would again stressthe use of multiple charactersin identifying Western Kingbirds (p. 160), as other yellow-bellied kingbirds have been taken in the e•st and m•y be increasing. The important feature of Western Kingbirds is the even, contrasted t•il, largely bl•ck but with abrupt white outer web of the outer rectrix. Cassin's Kingbird (T. vociferans)lacks this contrasting white. TropicM kingbirds l•ck both black •nd white, the t•il being dark brownishto dusky and notched (or even forked in someforms). Their identifica- tion is extremely critical, and no usablekey exists•s yet; they should be preservedas museum specimensuntil such a key, now being prepared, is published. The generalizationsgiven in the 1966 p•per relating to migration schedulesand presenceor •bsenceat specifictimes of the year have, Vol.41, No. 3 FlycatchersofEastern iVorth America [193 for the most part, been substantiated. Some departureshave been brought to our attention but, with few exceptions,are not significant enough to merit presentation here. Dr. Parkes has informed us, however, that data accumulated at the Powdermill Nature Reserve suggest that both Yellow-bellied and Traill's Flycatchers continue to move through western Pennsylvania,in small numbers,into early October, and that station has one record of a Traill's as late as 11 October and of a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher as late as 30 October. We are most appreciative for the splendiddata sent to us by Dr. William B. Robertson, Jr., and John C. Ogden, which help to clarify the distributional status of certain flycatchers in Florida. Consequently,some of the statementsin the 1966 paper need to be corrected or amended, and we refer the reader to the appropriate page numbers. Since the Eastern Wood Pewee, Corotopusvirens (p. 158), is known to have nested in Volusia County, Florida, the speciesmay be present in the northern part of the state during the summer months. Great Crested Flycatchers, Myiarchus crinitus (p. 159), winter rather commonly in parts of southern Florida, i.e. Palm Beach south to •[atccumbe Keys. The Gray Kingbird, Ty- ran•us dominice•sis (p. 160), breeds up to 10-15 miles inland from the coast of Florida, chiefly in towns, and migratesthroughout the interior of southern Florida. Western Kingbirds (p. 160), and Scissor-tailed Flycatchers, Muscivora forficata (p. 161), winter rather commonly (October to June) in the southern half of Florida, including the keys, and are regular transients (especiallyin October and November) on the Gulf coast below Tallahassee. The Least Fly- catcher, Empidonax minimus (p. 161), winters regularly on the south Florida mainland, mainly in "dense thickets on low ground" (fide Robertson), and is fairly common there from September through October. This is the commonestspecies of Empidonax in southern Florida after the first few days of October.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus) Overview
    Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Overview Predicted Impacts Habitat Change 2030 48-50% Loss 2060 54-62% Loss 2090 62-71% Loss Adaptive capacity Very Low Fire Response Negative Status: The Southwestern willow flycatcher has been on the federal endangered species list since 1995. Range and Habitat: The Southwestern Willow flycatcher inhabits riparian areas in the southwestern U.S. (Figure 1). It winters in southern Mexico, Central America and northern South America (Sedgwick 2000). In the Middle Rio Grande, the Southwestern willow flycatcher migrates through willow, cottonwood and saltcedar stands (Hunter 1988; Cartron et al. 2008). It is common in New Mexico during migration in the spring and fall, but also breeds in a few areas along the Middle Rio Grande. This species is associated with dense shrubby and wet habitats and typically nests in flooded areas with willow dominated habitat (Sedgwick 2000). Generally, the Southwestern willow flycatcher does not occupy areas dominated by exotics (Skoggs and Marshall 2000), but can successfully nest in saltcedar-dominated habitats (Skoggs et al. 2006). Figure 1. Distribution of Empidonax traillii subspecies. From Sogge et al. 2010, USGS. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Climate Impacts and Adaptive Capacity Adaptive capacity score = 2.5 (very low) There are a number of indications for potential negative impacts for the flycatcher under changing climate (Table 1). The Southwestern willow flycatcher uses shrubs and small trees for nesting substrates. Increased shrub cover is associated with reproductive success of the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Bombay et al. 2003). Additionally, willow flycatchers will not nest if water is not flowing (Johnson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with Birds Observed Off-Campus During BIOL3400 Field Course
    Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with birds observed off-campus during BIOL3400 Field course Photo Credit: Talton Cooper Species Descriptions and Photos by students of BIOL3400 Edited by Troy A. Ladine Photo Credit: Kenneth Anding Links to Tables, Figures, and Species accounts for birds observed during May-term course or winter bird counts. Figure 1. Location of Environmental Studies Area Table. 1. Number of species and number of days observing birds during the field course from 2005 to 2016 and annual statistics. Table 2. Compilation of species observed during May 2005 - 2016 on campus and off-campus. Table 3. Number of days, by year, species have been observed on the campus of ETBU. Table 4. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during the off-campus trips. Table 5. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during a winter count of birds on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Table 6. Species observed from 1 September to 1 October 2009 on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Alphabetical Listing of Birds with authors of accounts and photographers . A Acadian Flycatcher B Anhinga B Belted Kingfisher Alder Flycatcher Bald Eagle Travis W. Sammons American Bittern Shane Kelehan Bewick's Wren Lynlea Hansen Rusty Collier Black Phoebe American Coot Leslie Fletcher Black-throated Blue Warbler Jordan Bartlett Jovana Nieto Jacob Stone American Crow Baltimore Oriole Black Vulture Zane Gruznina Pete Fitzsimmons Jeremy Alexander Darius Roberts George Plumlee Blair Brown Rachel Hastie Janae Wineland Brent Lewis American Goldfinch Barn Swallow Keely Schlabs Kathleen Santanello Katy Gifford Black-and-white Warbler Matthew Armendarez Jordan Brewer Sheridan A.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, a New Genus for Three Species of Tyrant Flycatchers (Passeriformes: Tyrannidae)
    Zootaxa 2290: 36–40 (2009) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2009 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) A new genus for three species of tyrant flycatchers (Passeriformes: Tyrannidae), formerly placed in Myiophobus JAN I. OHLSON1, JON FJELDSÅ2 & PER G. P. ERICSON3 1) Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected] 2) Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Email: [email protected] 3) Director of Science, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected] Abstract A new genus, Nephelomyias, is erected for three species of Andean tyrant flycatchers (Aves: Passeriformes: Tyrannidae) traditionally placed in the genus Myiophobus. An extensive study based on molecular data has shown that they form a well supported clade that is not closely related to other Myiophobus species. Instead, they form a small independent lineage in Tyrannidae, together with Pyrrhomyias, Hirundinea and Myiotriccus. Key words: Nephelomyias lintoni, Nephelomyias ochraceiventris, Nephelomyias pulcher, Tyrannidae, taxonomy, phylogeny Introduction Recent phylogenetic studies, based on extensive molecular data (e.g. Ohlson et al. 2008; Tello et al. 2009), have greatly improved our knowledge of the relationships and evolution of the tyrant flycatchers (Tyrannidae). Several unexpected relationships have been revealed and a number of traditional genera have proven to be non-monophyletic, prompting taxonomic rearrangements. Here we erect a new generic name for three species traditionally placed in the genus Myiophobus, which were found by Ohlson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Biology of the Grey-Breasted Flycatcher Lathrotriccus Griseipectus in South-West Ecuador
    Harold F. Greeney 14 Bull. B.O.C. 2014 134(1) Breeding biology of the Grey-breasted Flycatcher Lathrotriccus griseipectus in south-west Ecuador by Harold F. Greeney Received 3 May 2013 Summary.—I studied two nests of Grey-breasted Flycatcher Lathrotriccus griseipectus in seasonally deciduous dry forest in south-west Ecuador. Nests were open cups constructed in natural depressions, one in the butress of a large tree and one in a clump of bromeliads. Construction of one nest was completed in fve days. Clutch size was two at one nest, and the eggs were pale beige with sparse, red-brown blotching. Eggs at both nests were laid 48 hours apart, and at one nest both eggs hatched 16 days after clutch completion. One nest was depredated immediately after the second egg was laid, but both nestlings fedged after 14 days at the other. Only one adult incubated, but both provisioned nestlings. The species’ breeding biology is similar in all respects to that of the congeneric Euler’s Flycatcher L. euleri, as well as to members of the closely related genus Empidonax of temperate and subtropical America. Grey-breasted Flycatcher Lathrotriccus griseipectus is a monotypic species restricted to the Tumbesian region of western Ecuador and Peru (Fitpatrick 2004). Within its small range, the species is generally uncommon and has apparently declined in recent years, consequently Birdlife International (2013) treat it as Vulnerable. The species’ only congeneric, Euler’s Flycatcher L. euleri, is comparatively widespread and its breeding biology well known (Allen 1893, Euler 1900, Belcher & Smooker 1937, Aguilar et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Chapter 10 of Section A, Biological Science Book 2, Collection of Environmental Data Techniques and Methods 2A-10 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Photograph taken by Susan Sferra, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher By Mark K. Sogge, U.S. Geological Survey; Darrell Ahlers, Bureau of Reclamation; and Susan J. Sferra, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chapter 10 of Section A, Biological Science Book 2, Collection of Environmental Data Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Techniques and Methods 2A-10 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Empidonax Traillii) in Ecuador and Northern Mexico
    Winter Distribution of the Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) in Ecuador and Northern Mexico Submitted to: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Boulder City, AZ Prepared by: Catherine Nishida and Mary J. Whitfield Southern Sierra Research Station P.O. Box 1316 Weldon, CA, 93283 (760) 378-2402 March 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Concern for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) has stimulated increased research, management, and conservation of the species on its North American breeding grounds. To supplement current knowledge of breeding populations, recent studies in Latin America (Koronkiewicz et al. 1998; Koronkiewicz and Whitfield 1999; Koronkiewicz and Sogge 2000; Lynn and Whitfield 2000, 2002; Nishida and Whitfield 2003, 2004) have focused on wintering ecology. We extended these efforts by surveying for willow flycatchers from 8–24 December, 2004 in northern Mexico and 18–28 January, 2005 in Ecuador. Our goals were to identify territories occupied by wintering willow flycatchers, describe habitat in occupied areas, collect blood and feather samples, collect colorimeter readings, relocate banded individuals, and identify threats to willow flycatcher populations on the wintering grounds. We spent a total of 103.7 survey hours at 30 survey sites in northern Mexico and Ecuador. In northern Mexico, we surveyed four new locations and revisited three locations from our initial 2002 surveys of Mexico. We detected a minimum of 52 willow flycatchers (Sinaloa = 2, Nayarit = 50). In Mexico, occupied habitat was found along the Pacific coast lowlands. In Ecuador, we revisited locations that had been surveyed annually since 2003 (except Sani, which was surveyed 2004–2005) and found high willow flycatcher densities at a new location along the Río Coca.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment for Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax Flaviventris) 2 Table of Contents
    Conservation Assessment for Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) Photo credit: B. D. Cotterille, Cornell Lab of Ornithology USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region October, 2000 Prepared by: David S. deCalesta Research Wildlife Biologist Allegheny National Forest This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Conservation Assessment for Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE............................................................................................ 4 BIOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Further Examination of Wing and Tail Formulae in Empidonax and Contopus Flycatchers. In: Dickerman, R.W. Comp. the Era of Alla
    A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF WING AND TAIL FORMULAE IN EMPIDONAX AND CONTOPUS FLYCATCHERS PETER PYLE1 A b s t r a c t . — Useful new information on identifying and sexing specimens of Empidonax and Contopus flycatchers, two of the most critically examined genera of North American birds, is presented in a format most useful for in-hand determinations. As first emphasized by Allan Phillips (1944a, 1944b) differences in wing formu­ lae, as well as the length of the wing minus the length of the tail (WG−TL), have proven important means to identify Empidonax and Contopus flycatchers in the hand (Johnson 1963; Stein 1963; Phillips et al. 1964, 1966; Phillips and Lanyon 1970; DeSante et al. 1985). Since these original examinations were published, some refinements to the differ­ ences have been suggested (Unitt 1987; Hussell 1990; Seutin 1991); however, little fur­ ther work on this topic has been performed. Phillips et al. (1966) also noted that the distance from the tip of the tail to the tip of the uppertail coverts could be used to separate many young male Eastern (Contopus virens) from Western (C. sordidulus) Wood-Pewees; but no analyses have been performed on other age/sex groups, nor any information on wing formulae in wood-pewees been published. The use of wing formulae to identify flycatchers is complicated by intraspecific variation according to age, sex, feather wear and geography, factors that have been recog­ nized but not thoroughly documented in most original works. Published ranges of wing formula and wing-tail measurements, furthermore, may contain anomalous or misclassi- fied individuals, or may not have been based on adequate samples; thus, intraspecific ranges useful in separating 95% of populations are usually not known.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: 018085 Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i 018086 This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax Flaviventris
    Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Doug Gross/PGC Photo Current Status: In Pennsylvania, the yellow-bellied flycatcher is listed as state endangered and pro- tected under the Game and Wildlife Code. Although not list as endangered or threatened at the federal level, this bird is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird of Conservation Concern in the North- east. All migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. POPULATION TREND: This is one of the rarest nesting birds in the state; it generally nests in remote areas, so trends are difficult to determine. Nesting pairs have been found since 1987 in isolated swamps in Luzerne, Lycoming, McKean, Sullivan and Wyoming counties. The largest and most stable population is the Dutch Mountain wetland complex in western Wyoming County, including Coalbed Swamp, that is part of State Game Lands 57. Several sites seem to be occupied for a year or two, then go vacant. It for- merly nested in the Pocono Mountains, but has not been found nesting there since the 1930s. The yellow -bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) was changed from threatened to endangered in 2005 by the Game Commission following the advice of the Ornithological Technical Committee, because of its extreme rarity. The Appalachian Mountain populations of this and other boreal forest species have declined over the last decades. It formerly nested occasionally in scattered high elevation locations as far south as North Carolina in the Appalachian Mountains. The nearest nesting populations are about 100 miles away in the Catskill Mountains of New York. Populations seem to be increasing in New York, but decreasing in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Breeding Biology of Hammond's ( Empidonax Hammondii) and Dusky (Empidonax Oberholseri) Flycatchers
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1975 A comparative study of the breeding biology of Hammond's ( Empidonax hammondii) and Dusky (Empidonax oberholseri) flycatchers James Andrew Sedgwick The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sedgwick, James Andrew, "A comparative study of the breeding biology of Hammond's ( Empidonax hammondii) and Dusky (Empidonax oberholseri) flycatchers" (1975). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6917. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6917 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COÎTARATIVü STUDY OF THE BREEDING BIOLOGY OF HAIEIOITD'S ( EIEPIDONAX HAl'MOHDIl) AND DUSKY (EfTPIDOHAX OBERHOLSERI ) FLYCATCHERS By James A. Sedgwick 3.S., Trinity College, 1971 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1975 Approved by: Cltà^Lraan, feoard of/(Salniiners / f ? . UMI Number: EP37718 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Willow Flycatchers (EMPIDONAX TRAILLII) in the Sierra Nevada, California: Effects of Meadow Characteristics and Weather on Demographics Heather A
    Ornithological Monographs Volume (2012), No. 75, 1–32 © The American Ornithologists’ Union, 2012. Printed in USA. ECOLOGY OF WILLOW FLYCatCHERS (EMPIDONAX TRAILLII) IN THE SIERRA NevaDA, CALIFORNIA: EFFECTS OF MEADOW CHARACTERISTICS AND weatHER ON DEMOGRAPHICS Heather A. Mathewson,1,4 Michael L. Morrison,2 Helen L. Loffland,3,5 and Peter F. Brussard1 1Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89523, USA; 2Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA; and 3California State University, Sacramento, California 95819, USA Abstract.—Population declines in songbirds are often attributed to regional habitat loss and fragmentation caused by land-use practices, which might be further aggravated by cli- mate change. These concerns are particularly evident in the Intermountain West, where ripar- ian areas are considered a priority for conservation because of predicted reductions in winter precipitation and increases in spring temperatures. These climatic changes might increase the susceptibility of species reliant on riparian areas to regional extirpation from loss of habitat. The Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) is a California species of concern because of precipitous population declines in the past three decades. In 1997, we established a long-term research program to determine population demographics and the effects of weather events and regional- scale meadow distribution and vegetative structure on nesting success of Willow Flycatchers. We monitored territory establishment and reproductive success of 786 territories and 850 nests in meadows distributed south and north of Lake Tahoe, California, from 1997 to 2008. We docu- mented near extirpation of Willow Flycatchers south of the lake and a declining trend in the number of territories north of the lake.
    [Show full text]