Myiarchus crinitus - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Great Crested Flycatcher
Other English Common Names: great crested flycatcher
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Myiarchus crinitus (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 178309)
French Common Names: tyran huppé
Spanish Common Names: Papamoscas Viajero
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105609
Element Code: ABPAE43070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 10805

© Warren Mansur

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Tyrannidae Myiarchus
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Myiarchus crinitus
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in eastern North America; common in many areas; stable population in recent decades.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (26Jan2018)

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 (S5B), Arkansas (S4B), Colorado (S4B), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S5B), District of Columbia (S3B), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S4B,S4N), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S5B), Maine (S5B), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (S4), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S4B), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5B), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (S5B), South Carolina (S5B), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4B), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S4B)
Canada Alberta (S3B), Manitoba (S4S5B), New Brunswick (S2S3B,S2S3M), Nova Scotia (S1B), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S4S5B), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: east-central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba east across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, west to eastern Dakotas, eastern Nebraska, western Kansas, and central Oklahoma (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: central and southern Florida and Cuba, and from southern Mexico (Veracruz, Oaxaca, Yucatan Peninsula) to northern South America (Colombia, eastern Ecuador [few records], and western Venezuela [casual]) (AOU 1983, Hilty and Brown 1986). MIGRATION: Occurs regularly through eastern New Mexico and eastern Mexico (west at least to Nuevo Leon and Guanajuato), casually west to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado (AOU 1983).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Many occurrences.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Greatest threat is loss and excessive fragmentation of breeding and winter habitat. Even though this bird appears to favor open woods, specific effects caused by habitat alterations are unclear. Possible effects include increased nest predation by edge species and nest competition. Relatively unmolested by the brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) because of its hole nesting habit (Friedmann 1963). However, European starlings (STURNUS VULGARIS) are an aggressive competitor for nest sites (Bent 1942). Snakes and squirrels may also destroy some eggs and young. Snake predation on nesting birds in boxes may be fairly high (Taylor and Kershner 1991). Some argue that the loss of habitat is less strongly related to species densities than to change in habitat features within an altered area (Martin 1992). Individual species react differently to habitat changes. Little is known of the relationship between the flycatcher and its habitat features, especially where habitat manipulations are occurring. Pin-pointing specific threats affecting this species is difficult due to this lack of information.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a stable population in North America between 1966 and 1993 and also from 1984 to 1993 (Price et al. 1995). Litwin and Smith (1992) noted a 38% increase in numbers in northeastern forest fragments between 1950 and 1980. It is possible that this flycatcher is benefitting from the creation of openings in continuous forest (Cadman et al. 1987) and increased fragmentation. Reports of population increases may indicate a rise in fragmented landscapes.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: east-central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba east across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, west to eastern Dakotas, eastern Nebraska, western Kansas, and central Oklahoma (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: central and southern Florida and Cuba, and from southern Mexico (Veracruz, Oaxaca, Yucatan Peninsula) to northern South America (Colombia, eastern Ecuador [few records], and western Venezuela [casual]) (AOU 1983, Hilty and Brown 1986). MIGRATION: Occurs regularly through eastern New Mexico and eastern Mexico (west at least to Nuevo Leon and Guanajuato), casually west to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado (AOU 1983).

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 AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada AB, MB, NB, NS, ON, QC, SK

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, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A large (20 cm) bird (flycatcher).
General Description: Male has olive-brown body and head crest, pale gray breast and throat, yellow abdomen, long rufous tail, and cinnamon wings with white wing bars (illustrated in NGS 1987). Measurements: length, 32.4-35.6 cm; mass, 28-42.5 g. Female is similar but may be duller. Immature/fledgling patterns are similar to the adult, colors may be duller.

NEST: bulky mass of twigs, leaves, hair, feathers, bark fibers, rope, or other trash; almost always includes cast-off snakeskin or cellophane pieces; a small cup for the eggs is formed in the trashy surroundings; lined with finer material and feathers.

EGGS: creamy-white, yellowish, or pinkish-white; marked with dark brown and purple, scratches, lines, streaks or blotches; markings are sometimes concentrated at one end, may almost obliterate ground color, or may be as fine hairlines, as if drawn by a pen. See Terres (1980), Harrison (1975), and Bent (1942).

Diagnostic Characteristics: Similar to western kingbird (TYRANNUS VERTICALIS), but kingbird has a longer, black tail, less conspicuous crest, and lacks the white wingbars (Terres 1980, Bent 1942).
Reproduction Comments: Males closely follow and may guard their mates during the fertile period (MacDougall-Shackleton and Robertson 1995). Taylor and Kershner (1991) reported that females build the nests. However, other reports indicate varying degrees of male assistance (Harrison 1975, Bent 1942). Nest building can take as long as two weeks. In central Florida, clutches were initiated from mid-April to early June, the latest clutches being renesting attempts by birds whose first nest was destroyed (Taylor and Kershner 1991). Clutch size is 4-8 (usually 5-6). Incubation, by female, lasts 13-15 days. Female broods hatchlings for 6 days. Young are tended by both parents (Morrison 1988), leave nest at 13-15 days (Taylor and Kershner 1991) or 12-18 days. Family group stays together for at least a few weeks after young fledge (Taylor and Kershner 1991, Terres 1980, Harrison 1975, Bent 1942). Taylor and Kershner (1991) reported one brood per season.
Ecology Comments: Via (1979) compared habitat structure and foraging tactics of flycatchers in southwestern Virginia. His findings suggest that uniform forest types could harbor multiple species of flycatchers. Utilization of different habitat features may assist in segregation of overlapping territories. These segregating features include: vertical stratification of perches; habitat preference based on substrate diversity; and foraging tactics that exploit available resources. Longer foraging flights appear to segregate the great crested from other flycatchers. These foraging flights are associated with capture of larger prey.

May hold individual territory in winter (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in nesting areas March-May (Terres 1980). In central Florida, males arrive in late March, females 7-12 days later (Taylor and Kershner 1991). Arrives in Costa Rica late September or early October, departs by mid- to late April, occasionally early May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Present in Colombia mid-October to early May (Hilty and Brown 1986).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: deciduous (mainly), mixed, or pine woodland or somewhat open forest (Hamel et al. 1982, Hamel 1992), parks, orchards, wooded residential areas, areas of scattered trees in cultivated regions, clearings and edges of wooded areas, and swamps. Frequents upper levels of trees. Research on canopy selection and flight length indicates a preference for open canopies where unhampered foraging flights can occur (Via 1979). Preferred perches are tall trees, but may also be found on utility lines and short shrub-like growth in recent clearcuts (Via 1979). Nests in natural cavity or old woodpecker hole in live or dead tree, average of 3-6 m above ground; also in bird box, pipe or similar cavity. Morrison (1988) suggested a preference for nestboxes that are hung from trees as opposed to stationary boxes; the former may be less likely to be used by starlings.

NON-BREEDING: prefers habitat similar to that used in breeding season (Hamel et al. 1982, Hamel 1992). Found mostly in lowland forest, woodland (AOU 1983), and humid to semiarid forest and edge (Howell and Webb 1995). In Colombia: humid forest borders, shrubby clearings, and second growth, occasionally canopy of undisturbed forest (Hilty and Brown 1986). In migration, found generally in wooded habitats (Howell and Webb 1995).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects (beetles, bees, wasps, sawflies, houseflies, stable flies, mosquitoes, grasshoppers, crickets, cicadas, katydids, moths and butterflies, true bugs, caterpillars) and spiders; also small fruits (e.g., mulberries, pokeberries, blackberries, raspberries, wild black cherries, and wild grapes (Morrison 1988, Terres 1980, Bent 1949). Flycatches high in canopy; in spring before full foliage development, also takes insects from or near ground and from crevices of bark (Bent 1942). Young are fed mainly insects. Often occurs at fruiting trees and shrubs on wintering grounds (Hilty and Brown 1986).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 22 centimeters
Weight: 34 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This common forest bird of eastern and central North America prefers semi-open habitats and edges and may benefit from forest fragmentation. BBS data indicate that populations are stable and may be increasing in some areas, unlike other Neotropical migrants. Because little is known about its relationships with its environment, any correlations between habitat and abundance are speculative. In order to maintain populations, efforts are needed to understand this bird's seasonal requirements. Three management needs have been identified and should cover seasonal ranges: 1) research focusing on natural history and specific habitat requirements, 2) increased monitoring of populations, and 3) research on affects of habitat manipulation (e.g., fragmentation, forest loss).
Restoration Potential: Currently reported common and stable throughout its range with only a few speculations of decline. Population restoration is currently not an issue. However, efforts should be made to maintain populations, thus eliminating the need for restoration in the future. See Mitchell (1988) for specifications for the construction and placement of nest boxes.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: At this time, specific habitat requirements are not documented. However, suggestions for conserving area-sensitive birds in forest landscapes were offered by Robbins et al. (1989). They concluded that forest areas under 10 ha are unsuitable and 3,000 ha is the minimum forest size that may retain all the species of forest-interior avifauna of eastern North America. These guidelines may not be specific to this edge-favoring species. However, managing forests for generalist species will adversely impact area-sensitive species such as the wood thrush (HYLOCICHLA MUSTELINA). For this reason, efforts to conserve Neotropical migrant populations should focus on requirements for area-sensitive species. In addition, critical habitat features that influence species success have not been thoroughly investigated (Martin 1992). These habitat features will have a great influence on future preserve designs.
Management Requirements: Specific management needs are poorly known.
Monitoring Requirements: Increased monitoring efforts are needed in winter and summer ranges. BBS data best address regional trends. Intense local investigations, like that presented by Litwin and Smith (1992), are needed to address specific changes in distribution and abundance. Monitoring methods include those suitable for many other forest birds.
Management Research Needs: In order to understand specific management needs, additional life history information is needed. In addition, effects of forest loss and fragmentation need to be addressed. Issues of primary concern should include: 1) effects of habitat loss in wintering and breeding ranges, 2) identification of specific habitat features (e.g., habitat size, composition) and associated resources that directly influence reproduction and survival, and 3) simultaneous consideration of the consequences of those features for coexisting species and any interacting species and the effects they have on one another (biodiversity approach) (Martin 1992).
Biological Research Needs: Very little is known about the behavior and biology of the great crested flycatcher. Any information is worthwhile, including information on breeding behavior, diet and foraging, winter range, and habitat relationships.
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: 19Sep1995
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Zeller, N. S., G. Hammerson, and F. Dirrigl, Jr.
Management Information Edition Date: 30Jun1993
Management Information Edition Author: ZELLER, N.S., AND G. HAMMERSON; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: An earlier draft of this abstract was sent to Jeff Walters, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina and Harry LeGrand, North Carolina Heritage Program. Their suggestions and clarifications were greatly appreciated. Thanks to all the Heritage biologists who responded to the ESA questionnaire. Alabama - Mike Bailey; Arkansas - Cindy Osborne; Connecticut - Dawn McKay; Florida - Dale Jackson; Georgia - Greg Krakow; Illinois - Vernon Kleen, Susan Dees; Indiana - Michelle Martin, John Castrale; Iowa - John Flackenstein; Kansas - Bill Busby; Kentucky - Brainard Palmer-Ball; Louisiana - Bill Vermillion; Maine - John Albright; Maryland - Lynn Davidson; Michigan - Mary Rabe; Minnesota - Mary Miller; Mississippi - Tom Mann; Nebraska - Mary Clausen; New Hampshire - Andy Cutko; New Jersey - Rick Dutko; New York - Kathryn Schneider; North Carolina - Harry LeGrand; North Dakota - Randy Kreil; Ohio - Daniel Rice; Oklahoma - Mark Lomolino; Pennsylvania - Barb Barton; Rhode Island - Rick Enser; South Carolina - Lex Glover; South Dakota - Eileen Down Stukel; Vermont - Chris Fichtel; Virginia - Sarah Mabey; West Virginia - Barbara Sargent; Wisconsin - Karen Gaines. Currently only 3 Canadian providences have Heritage Programs or Conservation Data Centres (Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario). Because of this, obtaining information for the provinces required contacting many different sources. Their combined efforts were greatly appreciated: Saskatchewan - Jim Duncan; Quebec - Guy Jolicoeur, Jon Gauthier; Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta - Rudolf Koes; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario - Mike Cadman, Tony Urskin. Thanks to Rex Sallabanks from North Carolina State University for his assistance in starting this project. Also thanks to the staff of North Carolina State University, D.H. Hill Library, especially the Inter-library Loan Office, for all their assistance in locating resources.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 15May1996
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., AND N. ZELLER

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 Breeding Bird Atlas 2000-2006 Homepage. 2009. T.M. Haggerty (editor), Alabama Ornithological Society. Available at http://www.una.edu/faculty/thaggerty/BBA%20website/Index.htm.

  • 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 ]

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

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

  • 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/.

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

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

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

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

  • Barbour, R.W. et al. 1973. Kentucky Birds.

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

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

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

  • Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada. 617pp.

  • 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.

  • Chambers, R.E. 1983. Integrating timber and wildlife management. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Fauth, Peter T. 1995. Wood Thrush Breeding Productivity Within a Fragmented Indiana Landscape. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. 18 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.

  • Hamel, P. B. 1992. The land manager's guide to the birds of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC. 367 pp + several appendices.

  • Hamel, P. B., H. E. LeGrand Jr., M. R. Lennartz, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1982. Bird-habitat relationships on southeastern forest lands. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-22.

  • 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.

  • Harrison, H.H. 1975. A field guide to bird's nests in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 257 p.

  • Haw, James A. 1994. Nesting Bird Survey: Salamonie River State Forest. 2 pp.

  • Hilty, S.L. and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 836 pp.

  • 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.

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

  • JOHNSGARD,P.A.1979.BIRDS OF THE GREAT PLAINS,BREEDING SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS. LINCOLN.

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

  • Lagacé M., L. Blais et D. Banville. 1983. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Première édition. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 100

  • Lanyon, Wesley, E. 1997. Great Crested Flycatcher; The Birds of North America. Vol. 8, No. 300. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

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

  • Litwin, T. S., and C. R. Smith. 1992. Factors influencing the decline of Neotropical migrants in a northeastern forest fragment: isolation, fragmentation, or mosaic effects? Pages 483-496 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

  • MacDougal-Shackleton, E.A., and R.J. Robertson. 1995. Mate guarding tactics used by Great Crested Flycatchers. Wilson Bulletin 107(4):757-761.

  • Martin, T. E. 1992d. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? In J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

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

  • Mills, Charles E. 1991. The Birds of a Southern Indiana Coal Mine Reclamation Project. 69 Ind. Aud. Q. 65-79.

  • 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.

  • Mitchell, W. A. 1988. Songbird nest boxes. Section 5.1.8, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Tech. Rep. EL-88-19. Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 48 pp.

  • 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.

  • Morrison, K. 1988. How to be a host to Great-crested Flycatchers. Florida Naturalist 61(1):6-7.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

  • Nelson, D. 1993. Colorado Bird Atlas: Manual on Use of Breeding Codes. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 27 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 1984-1987. UNPUBLISHED

  • 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.

  • Poole, A. F. and F. B. Gill. 1992. The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

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

  • Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 511 pp.

  • 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. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs No. 103.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Spahn, R. 1987. Highlights of the spring season. Kingbird 37(3):133-142.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Taylor, W. K., and M. A. Kershner. 1991. Breeding biology of the great crested flycatcher in central Florida. J. Field Ornithol. 62:28-39.

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

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

  • Via, J. W. 1979. Foraging tactics of flycatchers in southwestern Virginia. In J. G. Dickson, et. al. (editors). The Role of Insectivorous Birds in Forest Ecosystems. Academic Press.

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

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

  • Wood, MERRILL. 1979. BIRDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK. 133 PP.

  • Zeller, N.S., G. Hammerson, F. Dirrigl, D.W. Mehlman. 1998. Species Management Abstract for Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated

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

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 2018.
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 © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2018. 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.