Tyrannus forficatus - (Gmelin, 1789)
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
Synonym(s): Muscivora forficata
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tyrannus forficatus (Gmelin, 1789) (TSN 178293)
French Common Names: Tyran ā longue queue
Spanish Common Names: Tirano-Tijereta Rosado
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100078
Element Code: ABPAE52100
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Tyrannidae Tyrannus
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: Tyrannus forficatus
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in genus muscivora (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (04Jan2018)

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 (S2), Arkansas (S4N,S4B), Colorado (S1B), Florida (SNA), Kansas (S5B), Louisiana (S4B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (S3), New Mexico (S4B,S4N), Oklahoma (S5B), Tennessee (S2B), Texas (S3B)
Canada Ontario (SNA)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: eastern New Mexico, southeastern Colorado, southern Nebraska, central Missouri, central Arkansas, and western Louisiana south to northern Nuevo Leon and southern Texas (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: central and southern Florida, and in Middle America from southern Veracruz and Oaxaca south to central Costa Rica (rarely to western Panama); casual north to California and southern Louisiana (AOU 1998).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats are minimal; readily adapts to open habitats created by humans. HABITAT: Brush eradication in portions of the breeding range could reduce nesting habitat (Nolte and Fulbright 1996). PREDATION: Suspected predators of eggs/nestlings include kingsnakes (LAMPROPELTIS spp.), racers (COLUBER CONSTRICTOR), coachwhips (MASTICOPHIS FLAGELLUM), and great-tailed grackles (CASSIDIX MEXICANUS; Nolte and Fulbright 1996). Confirmed predators of nestlings include Cooper's hawks (ACCIPITER COOPERI) and American crows (CORVUS BRACHYRHYNCHOS; Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995, Regosin 1998). PARASITISM: Nests are occasionally parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds (MOLOTHRUS ATER), but cowbird eggs are typically ejected (Friedman 1963, Regosin 1994, Regosin 1998). INCLEMENT WEATHER: Severe windstorms and thunderstorms can reduce reproductive success by dislodging nests and reducing prey availability (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995).

Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a stable breeding population during the 30-year period, 1966-1996, with some areas (e.g., south Texas brushlands) showing a significant population increase (+4 percent per year) and other areas (e.g., east Texas prairies) exhibiting a significant population decline (-2.3 percent per year; Sauer et al. 1997). Weather patterns may have played a role in a population decline in the 1970s (Sauer 1990, cited in Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). Has expanded eastward with the conversion of woodland to open habitats such as croplands, pastures, cemeteries, golf courses, and subdivisions (Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992, Graber et al. 1974, James and Neal 1986, Mumford and Keller 1984). Analysis of Christmas Bird Count data reveals a survey-wide statistically significant decline (-1.6 percent per year) from 1959-1988 (Sauer et al. 1996).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: BREEDING: eastern New Mexico, southeastern Colorado, southern Nebraska, central Missouri, central Arkansas, and western Louisiana south to northern Nuevo Leon and southern Texas (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: central and southern Florida, and in Middle America from southern Veracruz and Oaxaca south to central Costa Rica (rarely to western Panama); casual north to California and southern Louisiana (AOU 1998).

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, FL, KS, LA, MO, NE, NM, OK, TN, TX
Canada ON

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


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Dallas (01047)
NE Frontier (31063)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Middle Alabama (03150203)+
10 Medicine (10250008)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (flycatcher).
Reproduction Comments: Nesting extends from late March through late August (Oberholser 1974). Females alone build the nest, incubate eggs and brood young; both sexes feed nestlings (Fitch 1950). One egg is laid per day until the clutch is complete (Fitch 1950). Clutch size is usually four to five, but ranges from three to six (Regosin 1998). In a two-year study in Oklahoma, mean clutch size was 4.7 eggs the first year and 4.5 eggs the second. Clutch sizes of second nesting attempts were smaller than first attempts (average of 4.0 eggs the first year and 4.4 eggs the second). Females that initiated clutches later in the season tended to lay smaller clutches than earlier-nesting females. One female made four nesting attempts. Two females laid three clutches of eggs for a total of 14 eggs apiece (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). In Texas, clutch size ranged from 3-5 eggs (mean = 3.8) in 16 nests (Fitch 1950). At another Texas site, clutch size averaged 4.4 eggs in one year and 4.5 eggs in another (Nolte and Fulbright 1996). Average clutch size of 16 nests in Kansas was 4.7 eggs (Murphy 1988). Average incubation time was 14 days in Texas (Fitch 1950) and 14.7-14.9 days (range = 13-22), depending on year, in Oklahoma. Eggs in earlier nests took longer to hatch than eggs in later nests, possibly as a result of colder weather earlier in the breeding season (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). The nestling period averages 15.3-15.4 days (range = 14-17; (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995).

Hatching success in Texas was 80 percent (Fitch 1950), and ranged from 85.7-88.9 percent in Oklahoma (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). In Oklahoma, nesting success ( percent nests that fledged at least one young) varied from 18.6-43.1 percent and, depending on year, successful pairs produced an average of 2.8-3.7 fledglings (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). In Texas, combined nesting success for two years of study was 39 percent and the mean number of young fledged from successful nests per year ranged from 3.0-3.2. Depending upon year, 15.4-36.4 percent of nest failures was due to predation and 7.7-45.5 percent was a result of inclement weather. Successful nests had less horizontal cover but more vertical cover than unsuccessful nests (Nolte and Fulbright 1996). In Oklahoma, 34 percent of nests were dislodged by storms during one summer (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). Of three instances in which females initiated egg laying after fledging young from earlier nests, the second nesting attempt failed in two cases, but was successful in the third (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995).

Ecology Comments: In Texas, density of breeding pairs varied from 1.6-3.3 pairs per 10 hectares and defended territories were estimated to encompass 0.2-0.4 hectare (Fitch 1950). In two study areas in Oklahoma, breeding densities were 0.5 and 0.7-1.1 pairs per hectare, respectively (Regosin 1998). In another Oklahoma study, the breeding density was 0.5 pairs per hectare (Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992). In Texas, an average of 52.7-112.6 individuals have been sighted on some Breeding Bird Survey routes (Price et al. 1995). Nests are built 16-308 meters apart from each other (Fitch 1950, Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995).

Inter-year site fidelity was observed in Texas by Nolte and Fulbright (1996). In one year, six nests were placed in shrubs used for nesting the prior year. In the third year of study, 25 nests were found in shrubs containing nests in at least one of the two previous years. Eight shrubs were used for nesting in subsequent years even after they died. Regosin and Pruett-Jones (1995) also observed site fidelity in Oklahoma: 47.8 percent of males and 57.6 percent of females breeding on the study area returned the second year, and 42.5 percent of all banded birds (breeding and non-breeding combined) returned to the study area the second year. Returning males held territories in the same general locations between years. Six (40 percent) of 15 returning females nested in the same tree both years, five (33.3 percent) nested within 100 meters of their first-year nest, and the remaining four (26.7 percent) nested greater than 100 meters away from their first-year nest.

Because males arrive on the breeding grounds ahead of females, the sex ratio is male-biased early in the breeding season, but approaches parity as more females arrive (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). Thought to attain sexual maturity in one year (Regosin 1998). Nestlings have been found infested with mites (Liponyssus bursa; Fitch 1950). In winter, can be locally abundant; hundreds converge to roost together in trees in marshes, mangroves and towns (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates between breeding grounds in south-central United States and northeastern Mexico and wintering grounds in southern Mexico, Central America, and extreme southern Florida. Typically departs winter habitat in March and April and arrives on breeding grounds from mid-March through early May (Regosin 1998). Spring migrants have been observed in Texas as early as February (Oberholser 1974). Males generally arrive on the breeding grounds before females (Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). In late summer, forms large premigratory communal roosts composed of up to 1,000 individuals (Fitch 1950, Regosin 1998). May use the same roost sites from year to year (Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992, Regosin 1998). Migrates south between late August and mid-October (though sometimes lingers into winter; Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992, James and Neal 1986, Oberholser 1974, Regosin 1998). Arrives on wintering ground from September-November (Regosin 1998, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Migrates at night (Bent 1942).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Inhabits open country (savannas, grasslands, croplands, pastures, gardens, parks, golf courses, and urban areas) with scattered trees and shrubs for perching and nesting. Natural plant associations inhabited during the breeding season include mesquite-acacia (Prosopis-Acacia) savanna, bluestem-grama (Andropogon-Bouteloua) prairie, blackland prairie, and bluestem-sacachuista (Andropogon-Spartina) prairie (Regosin 1998). Nests principally in isolated trees or shrubs, but also in tree or shrub copses or, more rarely, in riparian forests (Fitch 1950, Nolte and Fulbright 1996, Regosin 1998). Man-made structures, including telephone poles, streetlights, television antennas, power transformers, and windmills are sometimes utilized for nesting (Bent 1942, Fitch 1950, James and Neal 1986, Regosin 1998).

In eastern Texas, 91 percent of nests were constructed in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and most (58 percent) were on branches oriented to the northwest, north, and northeast, away from the prevailing winds (Nolte and Fulbright 1996). Other trees used for nesting include hackberry (Celtis leavigata), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), huisache (Acacia smallii), lime pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), American elm (Ulmus americana), cedar elm (U. crassifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), live oak (Q. virginiana), post oak (Q. stellata), retana (Parkinsonia aculeata), pecan (Carya illinoensis), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and yaupon (Ilex vomitoria; Bent 1942, Fitch 1950, Nolte and Fulbright 1996, Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995). Nests vary from 2.1-24 meters above the ground (Fitch 1950, James and Neal 1986, Nolte and Fulbright 1996, Regosin and Pruett-Jones 1995).

NON-BREEDING: inhabits savannas, pastures, croplands, second-growth scrub, forest edges, and developed areas, from lowlands to 2300 meters (Regosin 1998, Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Hunts from a perch; darts out and captures insects as they fly by. Also gleans insects off vegetation or captures insect prey on the ground. Rarely hops from branch to branch or hovers near trees to forage on invertebrates and berries (Fitch 1950, Regosin 1998). Will forage on insects at night under artificial light (Allan 1950, Frey 1993). Contents of 129 stomachs collected in Texas and Florida included 96 percent animal matter and 4 percent plant matter. Principal invertebrate prey included grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), bees and wasps (Hymenoptera), bugs (Hemiptera), caterpillars and moths (Lepidoptera), flies (Diptera), and spiders (Arachnida; Beal 1912). Fall flocks have been observed in cotton fields feeding on cotton worms (Aletia argillacea; Bent 1942). Grasshoppers were found in the stomachs of 4 out of 5 birds examined in Texas (Fitch 1950). Eats fruits of red mulberry (Morus rubra), hackberry, pigeonberry (Rivinia humulis), and dewberry (Rubus spp.). On the winter range feeds on insects and fruit; large numbers sometimes gather in trees to feed on fruit (Regosin 1998, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Water is obtained from puddles and cattle watering tanks (Fitch 1950, Regosin 1998).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 33 centimeters
Weight: 43 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Populations appear relatively secure; readily adapts to human-made open habitats provided scattered trees or shrubs are available for nesting and perches are available from which to forage. Although range-wide Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) suggest a significant decline, North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) does not. The discrepancies between these two monitoring programs may be due to the smaller CBC sample size or an expanding range. Weather-related mortality of eggs and young during the nesting season appears to significantly influence population size.
Restoration Potential: High restoration potential; readily inhabits human-created open habitats (Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992, James and Neal 1986, Regosin 1998).
Management Requirements: Requires open country, man-made or natural, with scattered trees and/or shrubs for perching and nesting. Where brush eradication is practiced, managers should leave patches or strips of untreated brush for nesting (Nolte and Fulbright 1996).
Monitoring Requirements: Readily monitored during breeding season by traversing habitat and counting conspicuously perched birds.
Management Research Needs: Need information on nest/fledgling predation by domestic pets in urban environments, nesting success in natural versus anthropogenic environments, and effects, if any, of pesticides used to control invertebrate prey that are considered agricultural pests.
Biological Research Needs: Need information on basic wintering ground ecology, life span and survivorship, juvenile dispersal from the breeding site, weather and predator related impacts on juvenile recruitment, nesting success, parasites and their influence on survivorship, migration routes, and the extent of defended foraging territories on the breeding grounds (Regosin 1998).
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: 14Dec1999
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Palis, J.; revisions by D.W. Mehlman
Management Information Edition Date: 14Dec1999
Management Information Edition Author: PALIS, J.; REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: The author thanks Jonathan Regosin for reviewing a draft of the abstract. Funding for the preparation of this abstract was provided through the Great Plains Bird Conservation Planning Team, supported by The Nature Conservancy's Wings of the Americas, Ecoregional Conservation, and Great Plains Programs.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14Dec1999
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): PALIS, J., AND G. HAMMERSON

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 ]

  • Allan, P. F. 1950. Scissor-tailed flycatcher, MUSCIVORA FORFICATA, feeding at night. Auk 67:517.

  • 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), 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). 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.

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

  • Baumgartner, F. M., and A. M. Baumgartner. 1992. Oklahoma bird life. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

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

  • 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.

  • Colorado Bird Observatory. 1997. 1996 Reference Guide to the Monitoring and Conservation Status of Colorado's Breeding Birds. Colorado Bird Observatory, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, and Partners, March 21, 1997.

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

  • Dobos, R.Z. 1999. Ontario Bird Records Committee report for 1998. Ontario Birds 17(2):62-83.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Shuster, Inc., New York. xxx + 785 pp.

  • Fitch, F. W., Jr. 1950. Life history and ecology of the scissor-tailed flycatcher, MUSCIVORA FORFICATA. Auk 67:145-168.

  • Frey, J. K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by scissor-tailed flycatchers under artificial light. Western Birds 24:200.

  • 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.

  • Graber, R. R., J. W. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1974. Illinois Birds: Tyrannidae. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes no. 86.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • James, D. A. and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds - Their Distribution and Abundance. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

  • James, R.D. 1991. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ontario (2nd ed., rev.). Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 128 pp.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Mumford, R. E., and C. E. Keller, 1984. The birds of Indiana. Indiana University Press.

  • Murphy, M. T. 1988. Comparative reproductive biology of kingbirds (TYRANNUS spp.) in eastern Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 100:357-376.

  • National Geographic Society, 1987. Field Guide to the birds of North America, second edition. The National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

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

  • Nolte, K. R. and T. E. Fulbright. 1996. Nesting ecology of scissor-tailed flycatchers in south Texas. Wilson Bulletin 108:302-316.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Regosin, J. V. 1994. Scissor-tailed flycatchers eject brown-headed cowbird eggs. Journal of Field Ornithology 65:508-511.

  • Regosin, J. V., and S. Pruett-Jones. 1995. Aspects of breeding biology and social organization in the scissor-tailed flycatcher. Condor 97:154-164.

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

  • Sauer, J. R. 1990. Route-regression analysis of scissor-tailed flycatcher population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90:160-163.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997b. July 29-last update. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

  • 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.

  • See SERO listing

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.