Contopus cooperi - (Nuttall, 1831)
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Other English Common Names: olive-sided flycatcher
Other Common Names: Piui-Boreal
Synonym(s): Contopus borealis
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Contopus cooperi (Nuttall, 1831) (TSN 554221)
French Common Names: moucherolle à côtés olive
Spanish Common Names: Pibí Boreal
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102228
Element Code: ABPAE32010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 11113

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Tyrannidae Contopus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Contopus cooperi
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in monotypic genus Nuttallornis (AOU 1998). Formerly known as C. borealis, but changed to C. cooperi following Banks and Browning (1995) and AOU (1997).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Nov2000
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Large breeding range in wooded areas of Canada, Alaska, and the western and northeastern U.S.; still secure in many areas, but a large, significant decline (a loss of 68% from 1966-2000) has occurred in recent decades, due probably to habitat changes in the breeding range and/or in migration and wintering areas.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B (28Mar2001)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4B,N3M (25Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNA), Alaska (S4S5B), Arizona (S4), Arkansas (SNA), California (S4), Colorado (S3S4B), Connecticut (S2B), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S1N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Idaho (S3B), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (S3N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S4B), Maryland (SHB), Massachusetts (SHB,S2N), Michigan (S3B), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S4B), Navajo Nation (S2?B), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (S2B), New Hampshire (S3B), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (S3B,S4N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SH), Oklahoma (S2N), Oregon (S3B), Pennsylvania (SXB), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SUB), Tennessee (S1), Texas (S3B,S4N), Utah (S3S4B), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (SHB), Washington (S3B), West Virginia (S1B), Wisconsin (S2B), Wyoming (S4B)
Canada Alberta (S3B), British Columbia (S3S4B), Labrador (S3B,SUM), Manitoba (S3S4B), New Brunswick (S3S4B,S3S4M), Newfoundland Island (S3B,SUM), Northwest Territories (SUB), Nova Scotia (S3B), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S2B), Quebec (S3), Saskatchewan (S4B,S4M), Yukon Territory (S3B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (23Feb2010)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (01Apr2018)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: The Canadian population of this widespread forest songbird has experienced a substantial long-term decline, although the rate of decrease has slowed over the past decade. Loss of wintering habitat in northern South America is likely the greatest threat facing this aerial insectivore, but the species may also be affected by changes on the breeding grounds such as the effects of altered fire regimes and climate change on nesting habitat quality, and reductions in the abundance and availability of aerial insect prey. Concerns for its status remain, as most of these threats are continuing, and those related to climate change may increase.

Status History: Designated Threatened in November 2007. Status re-examined and designated Special Concern in April 2018.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Breeding range extends from western, southern, and central Alaska and southern Yukon eastward to southern Labrador, south to northern Baja California, Arizona, New Mexico, the Guadalupe mountains of western Texas, and central Saskatchewan south through central Minnesota, northeastern Ohio, and Massachusetts, locally in Appalachians south to Tennessee and North Carolina (AOU 1983, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). During the northern winter, the range includes mountains of South America, mainly in the Andes from Colombia and Venezuela to southeastern Peru; in small numbers in Central America and southern Mexico (AOU 1983, Stiles and Skutch 1989); also in Amazonian and southeastern Brazil (Willis et al. 1993).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total population estimated at 1,200,000, but suspected inaccurate (Rosenberg 2004a and b). Greatest densities occur in the Sierra Nevada, where 9.28 per Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) route are recorded on average (1966-2003; Sauer et al. 2004). Over the entire BBS survey area in North America, an average of 1.22 are recorded per route per year (Sauer et al. 2004).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Causes of decline are not well known.

WINTERING HABITAT AVAILABILITY: As a neotropical migrant that may spend only three to four months of the year on its North American breeding grounds, this flycatcher is at risk from deforestation on its wintering grounds in Central and South America. Forest land in Middle America is being cleared at a high rate (Terborgh 1980). In California, Marshall (1988) found that some forest birds breeding on Redwood Mountain in Tulare County in the 1930s were no longer present in the 1980s. Although portions of virgin giant sequoia forest within Kings Canyon National Park remained, the flycatcher had disappeared. Marshall (1988) speculated that the disappearance from suitable, unchanged habitat was caused by the destruction of corresponding forests in Central America, where these birds maintain their winter territories.

NESTING HABITAT AVAILABILITY/QUALITY: Olive-sided flycatchers prefer openings with dead standing trees; these areas are naturally found near water (mountain tarns, backwaters of lakes and rivers, beaver flows), burns (both natural and those set by aboriginal peoples), and blowdowns. Many studies in western North America conclude that this species is more abundant in some types of logged forest (especially those with suitable structural features retained) than it is in unlogged stands (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Fichtel (1985) felt that continued logging in Vermont probably created habitat by creating openings in the forest. Hall (1983) observed that recently lumbered and burned areas supported flycatchers in West Virginia. However, the continuing increase in availability of logged forest openings is at odds with the documented overall decline in numbers of this species. Perhaps logged forest, although attractive to flycatchers, is an 'ecological trap' (Altman and Sallabanks 2000) and is actually a low quality breeding habitat. This hypothesis is supported by preliminary study in western Oregon, where nest success was substantially higher in postfire habitat than it was in several types of harvested forests (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Fire suppression throughout the breeding range undoubtedly limits the acreage of available habitat; large areas of dense, second growth forests growing up following cutting or fires are being maintained as closed canopy forests through intensive fire control. A likely threat to habitat in the southern Appalachians is acid precipitation and insect damage. A forest dominated by dead trees would not support these flycatchers (Peterson and Fichtel 1992).

OTHER FACTORS: Pesticide applications to control blackflies, mosquitoes, or injurious forest insects could have a severe local impact upon the prey base of this flycatcher, both in North America and on its wintering grounds, but this hypothesis lacks documentation. This species apparently is a rare host to the brown-headed cowbird, with just three records of cowbird parasitism (Friedmann 1963, Terres 1980).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate declines since 1966 across much of North American range; from 1966 - 2003, population has declined by -3.5% per year based on data from 776 routes (Sauer et al. 2004); significant overall decline of -3.6%/year from 1980 to 2003 (Sauer et al. 2004). Declines are relatively similar across range, although they appear to be more severe in the central and eastern regions of the continent (Sauer et al. 2000).

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: Until 1986, when 20-year analyses of BBS data became available, there appeared to be no detectable decline of this bird in North America. The lack of concern expressed by experienced field observers may have resulted from difficulty in detecting population trends for a species that is locally or patchily distributed even within the center of its range, and absent from vast expanses of apparently ideal habitat. In Ontario, for example, Cheskey (1987) found little evidence to suggest that the distribution or abundance had changed significantly within the past century. Abundance estimates suggest that this bird is thinly distributed throughout its range in the province, although it can reach densities of 100 pairs per sq km in some areas (Cheskey 1987). Trends in states in the Northeastern U.S. are discussed by Peterson and Fichtel (1992).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Further information on winter distribution is needed. The BBS is apparently the only ongoing monitoring program that begins to adequately address monitoring needs. In some states flycatchers occur on too few BBS routes to allow a meaningful assessment of state population trends. Established BBS routes not presently being run within the bird's range should be reactivated to ensure continuity in the collection of population trend data. A study might also be made on Breeding Bird Census plots where the bird is known to occur. Such an effort might allow a better understanding of any changes detected, much as Hall (1984) did with other neotropical migrants in West Virginia.

Future state Breeding Bird Atlases should be coordinated to take place simultaneously in all states and provinces, using a common block size and mapping system, and universal codes for breeding criteria. This effort should attempt to survey all blocks in each state or province. A scale of abundance for each species within every block should be employed, as was done in Ontario (Cadman et al. 1987).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range extends from western, southern, and central Alaska and southern Yukon eastward to southern Labrador, south to northern Baja California, Arizona, New Mexico, the Guadalupe mountains of western Texas, and central Saskatchewan south through central Minnesota, northeastern Ohio, and Massachusetts, locally in Appalachians south to Tennessee and North Carolina (AOU 1983, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). During the northern winter, the range includes mountains of South America, mainly in the Andes from Colombia and Venezuela to southeastern Peru; in small numbers in Central America and southern Mexico (AOU 1983, Stiles and Skutch 1989); also in Amazonian and southeastern Brazil (Willis et al. 1993).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PAextirpated, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe 2008


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Anchorage (02020), Bethel (CA) (02050), Denali (02068), Fairbanks North Star (02090), Haines (02100), Juneau (02110), Kenai Peninsula (02122), Ketchikan Gateway (02130), Kodiak Island (02150), Lake and Peninsula (02164), Matanuska-Susitna (02170), Nome (CA) (02180), North Slope (02185), Northwest Arctic (02188), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Sitka (02220), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Southeast Fairbanks (CA) (02240), Valdez-Cordova (CA) (02261), Wade Hampton (CA) (02270), Wrangell-Petersburg (CA) (02280), Yakutat (02282), Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)
CT Litchfield (09005)*
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Benewah (16009), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Butte (16023), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Fremont (16043), Gem (16045), Gooding (16047), Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Lewis (16061), Madison (16065), Minidoka (16067), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Shoshone (16079), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
MD Allegany (24001)*, Garrett (24023)*
NM Rio Arriba (35039), Sandoval (35043), Taos (35055)
SD Lawrence (46081)*, Pennington (46103)*
TN Sevier (47155)*
UT Salt Lake (49035)*, Summit (49043)*, Utah (49049)*, Wasatch (49051)*
WI Ashland (55003), Bayfield (55007), Douglas (55031), Florence (55037), Forest (55041), Iron (55051), Langlade (55067), Oneida (55085), Sawyer (55113), Taylor (55119), Vilas (55125)
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Hot Springs (56017), Johnson (56019), Laramie (56021), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Park (56029), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037), Teton (56039), Uinta (56041), Washakie (56043)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Farmington (01080207)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 North Branch Potomac (02070002)+*
04 Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Ontonagon (04020102)+, Menominee (04030108)+
05 Youghiogheny (05020006)+*
06 Lower French Broad (06010107)+*, Tuckasegee (06010203)+*
07 Namekagon (07030002)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Upper Wisconsin (07070001)+, Lake Dubay (07070002)+
10 Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Popo Agie (10080003)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, Shoshone (10080014)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Middle Fork Powder (10090201)+, South Fork Powder (10090203)+, Crazy Woman (10090205)+, Clear (10090206)+, Antelope (10120101)+, Dry Fork Cheyenne (10120102)+, Rapid (10120110)+*, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Crow (10190009)+, Upper Lodgepole (10190015)+
13 Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+
14 Upper Green (14040101)+, Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+, Big Sandy (14040104)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Muddy (14040108)+, Vermilion (14040109)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Muddy (14050004)+
16 Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Lower Weber (16020102)+*, Utah Lake (16020201)+*, Provo (16020203)+*, Jordan (16020204)+*, Curlew Valley (16020309)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Salt (17040105)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Goose (17040211)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Birch (17040216)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Camas (17040220)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, Jordan (17050108)+, North and Middle Forks Boise (17050111)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, Middle Fork Payette (17050121)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Upper Selway (17060301)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, Middle Fork Clearwater (17060304)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
19 Southeast Mainland (19010101)+, Ketchikan (19010102)+*, Prince of Wales (19010103)+, Mainland (19010201)+, Kuiu-Kupreanof-Mitkof-Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Isla (19010202)+, Baranof-Chichagof Islands (19010203)+, Admiralty Island (19010204)+, Lower Iskut (19010205)+, Lynn Canal (19010301)+, Glacier Bay (19010302)+, Chilkat-Skagway Rivers (19010303)+, Taku River (19010304)+, Yakutat Bay (19010401)+, Bering Glacier (19010402)+, Icy Strait-Chatham Strait (19010500)+, Upper Copper River (19020101)+, Middle Copper River (19020102)+, Chitina River (19020103)+, Lower Copper River (19020104)+, Eastern Prince William Sound (19020201)+, Western Prince William Sound (19020202)+, Prince William Sound (19020203)+, Lower Kenai Peninsula (19020301)+, Upper Kenai Peninsula (19020302)+, Anchorage (19020401)+, Matansuka (19020402)+, Upper Susitna River (19020501)+, Chulitna River (19020502)+, Talkeetna River (19020503)+, Yentna River (19020504)+, Lower Susitna River (19020505)+, Redoubt-Trading Bays (19020601)+, Shelikof Straight (19020702)+, Cook Inlet (19020800)+, Egegik Bay (19030203)+, Naknek (19030204)+, Lake Iliamna (19030206)+, Takotna River (19030403)+, Stony River (19030405)+, Middle Fork Kuskokwim River (19030406)+, Aniak (19030501)+, Kuskokwim Delta (19030502)+, Ladue River (19040102)+, Sixtymile River (19040103)+, Fortymile River (19040104)+, Sheenjek River (19040203)+, Black River (19040204)+, Porcupine Flats (19040205)+, Grass River (19040206)+, Middle Fork-North Fork Chandalar Rivers (19040301)+, Christian River (19040303)+, Eagle To Circle (19040401)+, Birch-Beaver Creeks (19040402)+, Yukon Flats (19040403)+, Ramparts (19040404)+, Nebesna-Chisana Rivers (19040501)+, Tok (19040502)+, Healy Lake (19040503)+, Delta River (19040504)+, Salcha River (19040505)+, Chena River (19040506)+, Tanana River (19040507)+, Nenana River (19040508)+, Tolovana River (19040509)+, Kantishna River (19040510)+, Lower Tanana River (19040511)+, Upper Koyukuk River (19040601)+, South Fork Koyukuk River (19040602)+, Alatna River (19040603)+, Kanuti River (19040604)+, Allakaket River (19040605)+, Dulbi River (19040607)+, Koyukuk Flats (19040608)+, Kateel River (19040609)+, Nowitna River (19040702)+, Melozitna River (19040703)+, Ramparts to Ruby (19040704)+, Galena (19040705)+, Anvik River (19040801)+, Upper Innoko River (19040802)+, Lower Innoko River (19040803)+, Anvik to Pilot Station (19040804)+, Unalakleet (19050102)+, Selawik Lake (19050301)+, Upper Kobuk River (19050302)+, Middle Kobuk River (19050303)+, Lower Kobuk River (19050304)+, Upper Noatak River (19050401)+, Lower Noatak River (19050403)+, Kotzebue Sound (19050500)+, Lower Colville River (19060304)+, Sagavanirktok River (19060402)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Large flycatcher; 18-20 cm in length (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Deep brownish olive-gray on back (darkest on crown), olive-gray sides and flanks, and white on throat, center of breast, and belly. White tuft above wing on side of rump (not always visible). Wings are dark with indistinct pale grayish wing-bars. Upper mandible is blackish and lower mandible is pale with a dark tip. Juveniles more brownish on back and buff wing-bars.
General Description: A rather large (18-20 cm) flycatcher, large-headed, with a proportionately short tail. Plumage is brownish-olive above (browner on juveniles) with a dull white to yellowish throat, breast, and belly. The streaked or mottled chest patches are darker. Sexes are similar, but may be separable in the hand by wing chord length, 96-109 mm (females) and 103-117 mm (males) (Pyle et al. 1987).

The juvenal plumage, "...essentially like the adult in color pattern, but darker above and brighter below" (Bent 1942), is acquired by a complete postnatal molt. Banders recognize a combination juvenal/hatching year plumage from June to November with "upperparts dark brown; wing bars distinct, brownish-buffy or brownish-white; [and] flight feathers relatively fresh" (Pyle et al. 1987).

An after-hatching-year plumage between January and October consists of grayish-olive upperparts, indistinct, pale grayish-olive wing bars, and worn flight feathers. From April to August, breeding males have a cloacal protuberance, and breeding females have a brood patch (Pyle et al. 1987).

EGGS: creamy white, buff, or pink, and lightly wreathed on the broad end with brown or gray blotches (Harrison 1978).

NEST: a loosely formed cup of twigs and grasses, sometimes comprised of lichens of the genus USNEA, and lined with finer plant materials and hair.

VOCALIZATIONS: 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 (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" of (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-syllabled 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."

Diagnostic Characteristics: In the hand, can be separated from the wood-pewees (Contopus sordidulus and C. virens) by the longer (96-117 mm) wing, and from Greater Pewee (C. pertinax) by plumage, tail length (63-74 mm), and by the horn-colored to blackish lower mandible.
Reproduction Comments: Courtship includes territorial fights between males, and males pursuing females across the canopies of coniferous forests. Courtship continues for at least two weeks until nest sites are chosen and pairing is completed (Bent 1942).

Reported egg dates include the following (see Wright 199, Altman 1999): late May to early July in California; late May through late July in northwestern Oregon; early June to mid-July in western Washington; late May through mid-July in British Columbia; mid-June through mid-July in Colorado; early June through early July in Massachusetts; mid-June through late July in Maine; early to late June in Ontario and New York; mid-June through early July in Nova Scotia. In central Alaska, first clutches were initiated from late May through mid-June.

Clutch size is usually 3-4. Incubation, by the female, lasts 14-19 days. Young leave the nest 15-23 days after hatching. Most fledging occurs in early to mid July, though young from renesting efforts may fledge late in July. In New York State records of unfledged juveniles on 22 June and fledglings from 10-24 July, and in Oregon most young fledged in 19-21 days (Altman 1999). In Alaska fledging recorded at 19-20 days after hatching of first egg for 2 nests (Wright 1997). Fledglings depend on parents for up to about a week after leaving the nest.

Renesting following loss of first clutch is common, second clutches may be smaller, three or even two eggs.

Ecology Comments: Considered an indicator species of the coniferous forest biome throughout North America, although occasionally found in mixed deciduous/coniferous forests. Usually territorial in non-breeding areas (Stiles and Skutch 1989) and may display strong year-to-year site fidelity on breeding (Wright 1997) and wintering grounds (Marshall 1988, Altman 1997). In a study of 16 insectivorous, aerially-foraging neotropical flycatcher species, including the olive-sided flycatcher, that are seasonally sympatric in the humid Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica, Sherry (1984) found that migrants are more opportunistic while wintering than the syntopic year-round residents.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Olive-sided flycatchers make the longest migrations of any flycatcher nesting in North America. They arrive in nesting areas usually in May (or sometimes as late as early June). Spring arrivals appear during the second and third weeks of May in Vermont (Fichtel 1985) and even into June in neighboring New York (Bull 1974, Peterson 1988). Most depart the northeastern United States by mid-September. They are present in Alaska from the middle of May to early September (Kessel and Gibson 1978); mean arrival date for males in Fairbanks for 1995 and 1996 was 24-26 May (range 11 May-8 June), with females arriving 7-9 days later (range 22 May - 10 June; Wright 1997).

Migrants move regularly through most of the western U.S. and Middle America, less commonly in the eastern U.S., casually along the southern Atlantic coast and in peninsular Florida (AOU 1983), although Duncan (1988) found this species to be a rare, but regular, fall migrant in extreme northwest Florida. Possibly because of their dependence upon flying insects as prey, these birds arrive rather late on their breeding grounds from South America.

Migrants move through Costa Rica late August-late October and mid-March to early June (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Individuals often return to the same wintering area in successive years.

Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BRIEF SUMMARY: Olive-sided flycatchers breed in various forest and woodland habitats: taiga, subalpine coniferous forest, mixed coniferous-deciduous forest, burned-over forest, spruce or tamarack bogs and other forested wetlands, and along the forested edges of lakes, ponds, and streams Most nesting sites contain dead standing trees, which are used as singing and feeding perches. Nests are placed most often in conifers, on horizontal limbs 2-15 meters from the ground. During the northern winter, this species occurs in a variety of forest, woodland, and open situations with scattered trees, especially where tall dead snags are present.

BREEDING: in forest and woodland, especially in burned-over areas with standing dead trees, in taiga, subalpine coniferous forest and mixed coniferous-deciduous forest (AOU 1983). In Ontario, they nest in spruce or tamarack bogs, along the forested edges of beaver (Castor canadensis) ponds and rivers, and in burned-over forests (Cheskey 1987). In New York, however, where forest fires have been suppressed for much of this century, they favor small bog ponds and quaking bogs, swampy edges of lakes, marshy streams, backwaters of rivers, and beaver meadows. Most nesting sites contain dead standing trees, which are used as singing and feeding perches, and are bordered by forest (Peterson 1988). Birds also use small mountaintop ponds. Forests surrounding these sites are usually coniferous or mixed with deciduous trees. Black spruce (Picea mariana) is frequently mentioned as occurring at northern sites, and red spruce (P. rubens) at sites farther south, along with balsam fir, tamarack, and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Peterson 1988).

Forbush (1927) and Griscom and Snyder (1955) mentioned that in southern New England, pitch pine (Pinus rigida) habitats, including pine barrens, are preferred for nesting. Nesting occurs in swamps and open woods or small clearings where fire, flooding or timber harvesting have left standing dead trees (Forbush 1927). High elevation spruce-fir forests are used in the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina (Bailey 1913, Potter et al. 1980).

Nests are placed most often in conifers (Harrison 1978, 1979), on horizontal limbs from two to 15 m from the ground (Harrison 1979, Peck and James 1987). In Ontario, nests were found in black and white spruce (Picea glauca) (14 nests), jack pine (Pinus banksiana) (two nests), and balsam fir (one nest) (Peck and James 1987). Adirondack nests were built on an outer branch from 7.6-13.7 m high in balsam fir or spruce (Peterson 1988). Even though the nest is bulky, it is well concealed and rather difficult to find.

NON-BREEDING: Includes a variety of forest, woodland, and open situations with scattered trees, especially where tall dead snags are present (AOU 1983). Primary habitat is mature, evergreen montane forest (Altman 1997). Migrants in Costa Rica occur almost anywhere, in exposed snags and open branches; in winter mostly around edges and clearings, or broken canopy of highland forest and semi-open areas (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Forages primarily by hovering or sallying forth, concentrating on prey available via aerial attack. Generally launches 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). The diet is made up almost entirely of flying insects, and this bird has a special fondness for wild honeybees and other Hymenoptera (Beal 1912, Forbush 1927, Bent 1942, Terres 1980). During breeding season in Central Alaska, most frequently preyed upon yellow-jacket wasps (Vespulla spp) and dragonflies (Odonata, Sympetrum spp and others) (Wright in Altman and Sallabanks 2000).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 19 centimeters
Weight: 32 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Nests along the edges of lakes, rivers, and beaver meadows and in open forest sites that have been cleared or burned. In northern New England and the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, they nest in coniferous sites of spruce, fir, and hemlock, mixed with deciduous trees, while in southern New England, they nest in pine habitats. Snags are an important habitat component used for singing and feeding perches, from which they forage for insects. BBS routes since 1966 have indicated a significant annual decline of 2.6% in the eastern U.S., and approaching 6.1% across the entire North American range. Reforestation and suppression of forest fires in northern New England and loss of habitat to suburban sprawl in the Northeast are possible causes for the decline, although habitat disruption along migration routes and on their wintering grounds in the mountains of Central and South America could contribute significantly to population declines. Further information is needed on the status of wintering populations and habitat. Known breeding areas in the Northeast should be managed by selective patch cutting or burning and also by retaining standing dead trees.
Restoration Potential: The potential for restoration of peripheral populations in urban, coastal and southern portions of its range is unknown, but may be worthy of investigation. Restoration efforts might include habitat manipulation, such as selective use of small patch clearcuts or wildfire, beaver restoration or flooding or girdling of trees where there were once historic populations or where vestigial populations remain. Retention of snags should be a consideration during timber harvesting operations in known inhabited areas. Recovery of beaver populations in the Northeast has provided breeding habitat via the creation of forest openings and greater amounts of pond shore habitat with tall, standing dead trees. Provided that beaver populations do not plummet as they once did, these habitats should persist. The potential for recovery of the population in the Northeast, assuming that declines are real, is less certain, since the real problem of breeding numbers may lie in the deforestation of the American tropics. Without addressing the problems on the wintering grounds, any recovery efforts directed solely at the breeding grounds may be too narrow to succeed (Peterson and Fichtel 1992).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Large blocks of montane spruce-fir or lowland boreal forest habitat will be necessary to ensure breeding habitat. At least 20 ha may be necessary to sustain a single territorial pair. Natural processes (e.g., fire and creation of beaver impoundments) and management (e.g., small patch clearcuts) are important for maintenance of proper breeding habitat. Public ownership of these lands, or conservation easements or management agreements to protect suitable forest habitats will be necessary (Peterson and Fichtel 1992).
Management Requirements: In the northeastern U.S., known breeding areas should be managed by selective patch cutting or burning and also by retaining standing dead trees; maintaining beaver populations should result in the creation of favorable habitat conditions (Peterson and Fichtel 1992). In western North America, silvicultural practices should probably mimic natural disturbances; examples include clearcuts that leave snags and trees and selection cuts. After a fire, some standing, dead trees should be retained or some areas should be left unsalvaged. Trees to be retained should have varying heights, with some at or above the canopy of the surrounding forest (Altman 1997).
Monitoring Requirements: The BBS is apparently the only ongoing monitoring program that begins to adequately address monitoring needs. In some states flycatchers occur on too few BBS routes to allow a meaningful assessment of state population trends. Established BBS routes not presently being run within the bird's range should be reactivated to ensure continuity in the collection of population trend data. A study might also be made on Breeding Bird Census plots where the bird is known to occur. Such an effort might allow a better understanding of any changes detected, much as Hall (1984) did with other neotropical migrants in West Virginia.
Management Research Needs: Even in Canada, where the flycatcher is considered widespread or fairly common, its distribution can be quite thin or widely scattered (Peterson and Fichtel 1992). The reason for the sparse occurrence in the far north is unknown, but lack of preferred prey, climate, or ancestral ranges may be factors. Whatever the cause, the limiting factor for the presence in the far north does not appear to be lack, loss, or destruction of habitat, although hydroelectric projects pose a possible danger. A better understanding of both the ultimate and proximate factors affecting habitat selection is needed. Site specific studies involving banding/color banding of individual birds are needed to gain information on movements, longevity, causes of mortality, and other aspects of the natural history.

A standardized wintering bird census network, which will cover a variety of habitats, elevations and disturbance regimes throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean, is urgently needed. Although the flycatcher is known to winter over a wide area, census work could clarify whether the majority of the wintering population is concentrated in a particular region. Banding studies are necessary to reveal where specific breeding populations winter. Studies of winter habitat preferences should be undertaken to identify what management approaches are necessary to sustain populations on the wintering grounds.

Future state Breeding Bird Atlases should be coordinated to take place simultaneously in all states and provinces, using a common block size and mapping system, and universal codes for breeding criteria. This effort should attempt to survey all blocks in each state or province. A scale of abundance for each species within every block should be employed, as was done in Ontario (Cadman et al. 1987).

Biological Research Needs: Even in Canada, where this species is considered widespread or fairly common, its distribution can be quite thin or widely scattered (Peterson and Fichtel 1992). The reason for the sparse occurrence in the far north is unknown. Whatever the cause, the limiting factor for the presence in the far north does not appear to be lack, loss, or destruction of habitat, although hydroelectric projects pose a possible danger. A better understanding of both the ultimate and proximate factors affecting habitat selection is needed. Site specific studies involving banding/color banding of individual birds are needed to gain information on movements, longevity, causes of mortality, and other aspects of the natural history.

A standardized wintering bird census network, which covers a variety of habitats, elevations and disturbance regimes throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean, is urgently needed. Although the flycatcher is known to winter over a wide area, census work could clarify whether the majority of the wintering population is concentrated in a particular region. Banding studies are necessary to reveal where specific breeding populations winter. Studies of winter habitat preferences should be undertaken to identify what management approaches are necessary to sustain populations on the wintering grounds.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site, Nesting Colony
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas.

For swallows and other species that have separate nesting and foraging areas, separations are based on nest sites or nesting areas, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap larger than the separation distance are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Mean foraging radius (from nesting area) of Brown-headed Cowbird females was 4.0 kilometers in California, 1.2 kilometers in Illinois-Missouri (Thompson 1994). Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Brewer's Blackbirds, and probably Red-winged Blackbirds all forage up to 1.6 kilometers away from breeding colony (Willson 1966, Horn 1968). In one study, Brewer's Blackbirds were found as far as 10 kilometers from nesting area (Williams 1952), but this may be unusual.

For swallows and other parrerines with similar behavioral ecology, separation distance pertains to nest sites or nesting colonies, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: For most passerines: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating individuals (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat.

For swallows: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 100 birds in appropriate habitat (e.g., traditional roost sites).

Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually.

EOs should not be described for species that are nomadic during nonbreeding season: e.g., Lark Bunting.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary but intended to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any area used traditionally in the nonbreeding season (used for populations that are not resident in a location year-round). Minimally, reliable observations of 10 or more individuals in appropriate habitat for 20 or more days at a time. For G1-G3 species, observations of fewer individuals could constitute an occurrence of conservation value. Sites used during migration should be documented under the 'migratory stopover' location use class.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is necessarily arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of birds with the need for occurrences of reasonable spatial scope. Note that a population's roost sites and foraging areas are parts of the same occurrence, even if they are more than 5 km apart.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Nonmigratory
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a particular location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in or near appropriate habitat.

These occurrence specifications are used for nonmigratory populations of passerine birds.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and breeding-season foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Blue jays have small summer home ranges but fly up to 4 kilometers to harvest mast (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999). Flocks of pinyon jays range over 21-29 square kilometers (Ligon 1971, Balda and Bateman 1971); nesting and foraging areas may be widely separated. Tricolored blackbirds forage in flocks that range widely to more than 15 kilometers from the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 03Jan2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Gotthardt, T. A., J. G. McClory, G. Hammerson, and S. Cannings. Reviewed by John Wright.
Management Information Edition Date: 01Jun1992
Management Information Edition Author: PETERSON, J.M.C., AND C. FICHTEL; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Schneider and Pence (1992). Funding for the preparation of the original document was made possible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Jan2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Gotthardt, T. A., J. G. McClory, and G. Hammerson. Reviewed by John Wright, November 2004.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

  • Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Unpublished distribution maps of Alaskan vertebrates. University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.

  • Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided Flycatcher in western North America: Status review. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland. 59 pp.

  • Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided Flycatcher in western North America: Status review. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland. 59 pp.

  • Altman, B. 1999. Nest success and habitat relationships of the olive-sided flycatcher in managed forests of northwestern Oregon. Unpubl. report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland.

  • Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). Issue no. 502 In The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole, Ed. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
    doi:10.2173/bna.502

  • Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). No. 502 in: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 502. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28 pp.

  • Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). No. 502 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28p.

  • Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2012. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/olsfly

  • Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). No. 502 IN A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp.

  • Altman, Bob and Rex Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycather. The Birds of North America. Vol. 13, No. 502: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Altman, R. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Washington and Oregon. ver. 1.0. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 83+pages.

  • Altman, R. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the northern Rocky Mountains of Washington and Oregon. ver. 1.0. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86+pages.

  • Altman, R. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Washington and Oregon. ver. 1.0. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 81+pages.

  • American Ornithologists Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pages.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1997. Forty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 114(3):542-552.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Andres, B.A. 1999. Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1998 annual report. May 1999. Alaska Science Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Unpubl. 35 pp.

  • Andrews, R. R. and R. R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 442 pp.

  • Anthony, R.G. et al. 1996. Avain abundance in riparian zones of three forest types in the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. The Wilson Bulletin. 108(2): 280-291.

  • Apfelbaum, S., and A. Haney. 1981. Bird populations before and after wild fire in a Great Lakes USA pine forest. Condor 83(4):347-354.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

  • Armstrong, R.H. 1995. Guide to the birds of Alaska, 4th ed. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage, Alaska. 322 pp.

  • Audubon Society. 1981-1985. Breeding Bird Atlas of New Hampshire. (unpublished).

  • B83COM01NAUS - Added from 2005 data exchange with Alberta, Canada.

  • BEHR, H. 1914. SOME BREEDING BIRDS IN GARRETT CO., MARYLAND. AUK 31:548.

  • Bailey, H. H. 1913. The Birds of Virginia. J. P. Bell Co., Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia. 362 pp.

  • Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus. Condor 73:287-302.

  • Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.

  • Beal, F. E. L. 1912. Food of our more important flycatchers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey Bulletin 44. 67 pp.

  • Benson, A. 1999. Distribution of landbirds among habitats on the Tanana Flats and Yukon Maneuver Area, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, 1998. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

  • Bent, A.C. 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 179. Washington, DC.

  • Bent, A.C. 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179. Washington, DC.

  • Bighorn National Forest. 1996. Endangered and Sensitive animal species of the Bighorn National Forest. Unpublished draft report on file at Bighorn NF Supervisor's Office, Sheridan, Wyoming.

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

  • Bock, C.E., and J.F. Lynch. 1970. Breeding bird populations of burned and unburned conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 72:182-189.

  • Braun, M. J., D. W. Finch, M. B. Robbins, and B. K. Schmidt. 2000. A field checklist of the birds of Guyana. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

  • Buckner, C.H. et al. 1975. The breeding bird community of coast forest stands on northern Vancouver Island. The Murrelet. 56(3): 6-11.

  • Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York state. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Reprint, 1985 (with Supplement, Federation of New York Bird Clubs, 1976), Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • COSEWIC. 2007h. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 25pp.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M Helleiner, compilers. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. Universtiy of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). NatureServe, Unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.

  • Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan Montana Version 1.0. Montana Partners in Flight. Kalispell, Montana.

  • Cheskey, T. 1987. Olive-sided flycatcher. Pages 250-251 in M. D. Cadman, P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner, editors. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. Fed. Ontario Nat., University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2018. COSEWIC Assessment Results, April 2018. Online. Available: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • Dean, F.C. (editor).1991. A summary of selected species of Alaska avifauna wintering in Central and South America. Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. Unpublished document.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Dionne C. 1906. Les oiseaux de la province de Québec. Dussault et Proulx.

  • Donaldson, A. L. 1921. A history of the Adirondacks. Volumes 1-2. Century Company, New York, New York.

  • Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne.

  • Downes, C.M., and B.T. Collins. 2008. Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

  • Droege, S. and J.Sauer. 1987. Breeding bird survey - administrative report to cooperators - 1987. Report to United States Dep.Interior Fish and Wildl. Serv., Laurel, MD. 6 pp.

  • Droege, S., and J.R. Sauer. 1990. North American Breeding Bird Survey, annual summary, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(8). 22 pp.

  • Duncan, R. A. 1988. The olive-sided flycatcher a rare but regular fall migrant in extreme northwest Florida, U.S.A. Florida Field Nat. 16(3):72-74.

  • Dunn, E. H., C. M. Downes, and B. T. Collins. 2000. The Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-1998. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 216. 40 pp.

  • Dunn, E.H. 2002. Using decline in bird populations to identify needs for conservation action. Conservation Biology 16(6): 1632-1637.

  • Dunn, E.H. et al. 2005. High priority needs for range-wide monitoring of North American landbirds. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 2.

  • Eaton, E. H. 1914. Birds of New York. Part 1. University of the State of New York, Albany, New York. State Museum Memoir 12. 501 pp.

  • Eckhardt, R. C. 1979. The adaptive syndromes of two guilds of insectivorous birds in the Colorado U.S.A. Rocky Mountains, Ecological Monographs 49(2):129-150.

  • Environment Canada. 2016h. Recovery Strategy for the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 52 pp.

  • Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Fichtel, C. 1985. Olive-sided flycatcher, 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.

  • Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report RM-215. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 38 p.

  • Forbush, E. H. 1927. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England States. Part 2: Land birds from bob-whites to Grackles. Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, Boston, Massachusetts. 461 pp.

  • Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic Cowbird. Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • Gollop, J.B. and B.W. Johns. 1980. Preliminary Report for Nongame Bird Census Development Project 1979-1980. Report for Parks Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, SK.

  • Griscom, L. and D. E. Snyder. 1955. The Birds of Massachusetts: An Annotated and Revised Check List. Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts. 295 pp.

  • Haché, S., P. Solymos, T. Fontaine, E. Bayne, S. Cumming, F. Schmiegelow, and D. Stralberg. 2014. Analyses to support critical habitat identification for Canada Warbler, Olive-sided Flycatcher, and Common Nighthawk (Project K4B20-13-0367). Final Report. Boreal Avian Modelling Project, Edmonton, AB. 157 pp.

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

  • Hagar, J., S. Howlin and L. Ganio. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to the experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 33-347.

  • Hall, G.A. 1983. West Virginia birds: distribution and ecology. Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 7, Pittsburgh. 180 pp.

  • Hall, G.A. 1984. Population decline of neotropical migrants in an Appalachian forest. American Birds 18(1):14-18.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.

  • Head, A. 1903. Nesting habits of two flycatchers at Lake Tahoe. Bird-Lore 5:153-155.

  • Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Hutto, R.L. 1995. Comparison of bird comunities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

  • Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 9(5): 1041-1058.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pages.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. Univ. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pp.

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1965. A DIRECTORY TO THE BIRDS OF KANSAS. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. LAWRENCE.

  • Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. U. Washington Press. 767 pp.

  • Kaufman, K. 1996. The lives of North American birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York. 765p

  • Keinath, D.A., H. Smith, and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Inventory and monitoring of avian management indicator species for the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming; year one progress report. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Kessel, B. 1979. Avian habitat classification for Alaska. Murrelet 60:86-94.

  • Kessel, B., and D. D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies in Avian Biology 1:88.

  • Kessel, B., and D.D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies Avian Biology. In: Studies in Avian Biology No. 1. R. J. Raitt, Ed. Cooper Ornithological Society. 1:1-100.

  • Kessler, W.B., and T.E. Kogut. 1985. Habitat orientations of forest birds in southeastern Alaska. Northw. Science 59(1):58-65.

  • Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. 2009. Peace River Site C hydro project. Baseline vegetation and wildlife report. 2008-2009. Unpublished report: 182 pp.

  • Kotliar, N. B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf

  • Kotliar, N.B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 37pp. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

  • Laughlin, S.B. and D.P. Kibbe, eds. 1985. The Atlas of Bre eding Birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England. 456pp.

  • Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piñon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.

  • Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A. Gauthreaux Jr, M. L. Avery, and R. L. Crawford. 2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada: which species, how many, and where? Biological Conservation 158:410-419.

  • Loss, S.R., T. Will, S.S. Loss, and P.P. Marra. 2014. Bird-building collisions in the United States: estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor 116:8-23.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The Birds of Louisiana. LSU Press. 651pp.

  • Marshall, J. T. 1988. Birds lost from a giant sequoia forest during fifty years. Condor 90(2):359-372.

  • Marshall, J.T. 1988. Birds lost from a giant sequoia forest during 50 years. Condor 90(2):359-372

  • Matsuoka, S. and K. Pardieck. 2009. 2009 Update on the North American Breeding Bird Survey, Alaska. Boreal Partners in Flight.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • Meehan, T.D. and T.L. George. 2003. Short-term effects of moderate- to high-severity wildfire on a disturbance-dependent flycatcher in northwest California. The Auk. 120(4): 1102-1113.

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918, Ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755 (1918) (current version at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712).

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.

  • Morissette, J.L. et al. 2002. The response of boreal forest songbird communities to fire and post-fire harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 2169-2183.

  • Munro, J.A. 1935. Bird life at Horse Lake, British Columbia. The Condor 37(4): 185-193.

  • NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at .

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1984. Preliminary species distribution maps, 1980-1984. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • Noble, R.E. 1977. Breeding-bird populations in hemlock-spruce old growth and clearcuts, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan, AK. 56 p.

  • Oakleaf, B, B. Luce, S. Ritter and A. Cerovski, eds. 1992. Wyoming bird and mammal atlas. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Game Division, Biological Services; Cheyenne, WY. 170 p. + 1994 addendum.

  • Office of Migratory Bird Management. 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 27 pp + appendices.

  • Ouellet H., M. Gosselin et J.P. Artigau. 1990. Nomenclature française des oiseaux d'Amérique du Nord. Secrétariat d'État du Canada. 457 p.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • Parks Canada Agency. 2017d. Multi-species Action Plan for Jasper National Park of Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. iv + 21 pp.

  • Parks Canada Agency. 2017e. Multi-species Action Plan for Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Site of Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. iv + 18 pp.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Partners in Flight (PIF) Population Estimates Database. 2007. Available on line at : http://www.rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/query.aspx

  • Partners in Flight. 2005. Species assessment database. http://www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html. Accessed June 2007.

  • Peck, G.K., and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding birds of Ontario: nidiology and distribution, volume 2. Passerines. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario.

  • Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer, and W. A. Link. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.

  • Peterjohn, B. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Orsillo. 1995. Breeding bird survey: population trends 1966-1992. Pages 14-21 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our Living Resources. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

  • Peterson, J. M. C., and C. Fichtel. 1992. Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus borealis. Pages 353-367 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.

  • Peterson, J.M.C. 1988. Olive-sided Flycatcher, Contopus borealis. Pages 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.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980a. A Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies. Houghton Mifflin Company. 383 pp.

  • Pogson, T.H., S.E. Quinlan, and B. Lehnhausen. 1999. A manual of selected neotropical migrants of Alaska national forests. E. Campbell and N. Andison (eds.). USDA, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska.

  • Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 408 pp.

  • Price, J., S. Droege, and A. Price. 1995. The summer atlas of North American birds. Academic Press, New York. x + 364 pp.

  • Pyle, P.S., N.G. Howell, R.P. Yunick, and D.F. DeSante. 1987. Identification guide to North American passerines. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California. 273 pp.

  • Raphael, M.G., M.L. Morrison, and M.P. Yoder-Williams. 1987. Breeding bird populations during twenty-five years of postfire succession in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 89:614-626.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1999e. Inventory Methods for Forest and Grassland Songbirds. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity. No. 15. Version 2.0.

  • Rhoads, S.N. 1893. The birds observed in British Columbia and Washington during spring and summer, 1892. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 45(1): 21-65.

  • Rich, T.D. et al. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, N.Y. 66pp. + appendices. Partners in Flight website. http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ (version: March 2005).

  • Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 84 p.

  • Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.

  • Ridgely, R. S. and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

  • Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 157. iii + 196 pp.

  • Robertson, B.A. and R.L. Hutto. 2007. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? The Condor. 109: 109-121.

  • Robertson, W.B. Jr., and G.E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida Bird Species: An Annotated List. Florida Ornithological Society, Special Publ. No. 6.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004a. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 1: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004a. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 1: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004b. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 2: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004b. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 2: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Ryke, N., D. Winters, L. McMartin and S. Vest. 1994. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. May 25, 1994.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center , Laurel, MD

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center , Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center , Laurel, MD

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon, 2003. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2002. Version 2003. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon, 2004. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographical patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pages 26-42 in J.M. Hagan, III, and D.W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, editors. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sherry, T. W. 1984. Comparative dietary ecology of sympatric insectivorous neotropical flycatchers Tyrannidae. Ecological Monographs 54(3):313-338.

  • Shirley, S.M. 2005, Habitat use by riparian and upland birds in oldgrowth coastal British Columbia rainforest. The Wilson Bulletin 117(3): 245-257.

  • Sinclair, P.H., W.A. Nixon, C.D. Eckert and N.L. Hughes. 2003. Birds of the Yukon Territory. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 595pp.

  • Smith, A.R. 1996. Atlas of Saskatchewan Birds. Special Publication #22. Saskatchewan Natural History Society. Rm 206, 1860 Lorne St, Regina, SK S4P 2L7. 456 pp.

  • Smith, M.R., P.W. Mattocks, Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Vol. 4. IN Washington State Gap analysis - Final report (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue., M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle, 538 pp.

  • Smucker, K., R.L. Hutton and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: Importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15(5): 1535-1549.

  • Soper, J.D. 1940. Preliminary Faunal Report on Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada. Department of Mines and Resources, Lands, Parks, and Forest Branch, National Parks Bureau, Winnipeg, MB.

  • Soper, J.D. 1943. Second Supplement to the Preliminary Faunal Report of February 25, 1941, on Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada. Department of Mines and Resources, Lands, Parks, and Forest Branch, National Parks Bureau, Winnipeg, MB.

  • Soper, J.D. 1946. Faunal Investigation in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan. Supplement No. 3. Department of Mines and Resources, Lands, Parks, and Forest Branch, National Parks Bureau, Winnipeg, MB.

  • Spindler, M.A., and B. Kessel. 1980. Avian populations and habitat use in interior Alaska taiga. Syesis 13:61-104. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK.

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Stone, W.E. 1995. The impact of a mountain pine beetle epidemic on wildlife habitat and communities in post-epidemic stands of lodgepole pine forest in northern Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

  • Tarvin, K. A., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). No. 469 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Terborgh, J. W. 1980. The conservation status of neotropical migrants: present and future. Pages 21-30 in A. Keast and E. S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the Neotropics: ecology, behavior, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 576 pp.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Thogmartin, W.E. et al. 2006. A review of the population estimation approach of the North American Landbird Conservation Plan. The Auk 123: 892-904

  • Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The 1987 List. Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. Olive-sided flycatcher. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 21pp.

  • USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2006. North American Breeding Bird Survey Internet data set. Available online at: (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/retrieval/).

  • USGS. 2008a. Alaska Off-road Breeding Bird Survey: Database of Bird Distribution (ALMS). Available online at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/OBS/database/index.html. (Accessed 5/15/2008).

  • Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(4): 893-901.

  • Van Wilgenburg, S.L., K.A. Hobson, E.M. Bayne, and N. Koper. 2013. Estimated avian nest loss associated with oil and gas exploration and extraction in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00585-080209

  • Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S.G. Mlodinow, eds. 2005. Birds of Washington; status and distribution. Oregon Status University Press. Corvalis, OR. 436 pp.

  • Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Animal dataset created for Northwest ReGAP project. Funded by USGS.

  • Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.

  • Willis, E.O., D.W. Snow, D.F. Stotz, and T.A. Parker, III. 1993. Olive-sided Flycatchers in southeastern Brazil. Wilson Bulletin 105(1):193-194.

  • Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.

  • Wright, J. M. 1997. Olive-sided Flycatchers in central Alaska, 1994-1996. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Final Report Project SE-3-4, Juneau, AK.

  • Wright, J.M. 1997. Preliminary study of olive-sided flycatchers, July 1994-April 1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final research report. Endangered species conservation fund federal aid studies SE-3-3, 4 and 5. Juneau, Alaska. 34pp.

  • Wright, J.M. 1997. Preliminary study of olive-sided flycatchers. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Restor. Res. Final Report, Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 1994-24 April 1997. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game, Div. Wildl. Conserv.

  • Wright, J.M. 2004. Species at risk- Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). Poster presented at the Tenth Alaska Bird Conference and Workshops. Mar 15-19, 2004 Anchorage, Alaska.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1997. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 1997. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1997. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 1997. 36pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2000. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 2000. 32pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2002. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2002. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2004. 24pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2004. 32pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2006. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2006. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2007. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall/Winter 2007. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2008. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2008. 26pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2009. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2009. 36pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2012. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2012. 15pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2013. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2013. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2014. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall-Winter 2014.12 pp.

  • Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.

  • eBird. 2016. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed in 2016.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.