Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (21) (learn more)

Overview

Distribution

Elanoides forficatus, otherwise known as the American swallow-tailed kite, is found primarily in the southeastern United States, from Louisiana to South Carolina. Most of the known population is centered in the southern tip of Florida. In the winter E. forficatus migrates to South America.

Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native ); neotropical (Native )

  • Dunne, P. 1995. The Wind Masters: The Lives of North American Birds of Prey. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Farrand, Jr., J. 1988. An Audubon Handbook: Eastern Birds. New York: Chanticleer Press, Inc.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Breeding

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range extends from South Carolina south to Florida, and west to Louisiana and east Texas; and from southeastern Mexico (Chiapas) south through Central America to eastern Peru, Bolivia, northern Argentina, Paraguay, and southeastern Brazil (Meyer 1995). The species is resident in South America from the Amazon Basin to Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname. Range in the United States has contracted; formerly the species bred north to Minnesota (Meyer 1995). During the nonbreeding season, this species occurs primarily in the northern half of South America, rarely in Central America or northward (Sibley and Monroe 1990, Meyer 1995, AOU 1998). See Palmer (1988) for detailed account of range.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

The most notable feature of E. forficatus is the deeply forked swallow-like tail, which distinguishes this kite species from its relatives, Mississippi kites and white-tailed kites. The structure of the tail enables this kite to fly well at low speeds. The wings are long and thin, enabling flight at high speeds as well.

Swallow-tailed kites are monomorphic. Adults have black wings with white undersides, white heads, necks, and underparts. The tail and upperparts are iridescent black, with streaks of green, purple, and bronze. Juveniles look similar to adults but with slightly streaked heads and underparts, as well as shorter white-tipped tails.

Swallow-tailed kites have a body length ranging from 49 to 65 cm. Wingspan is from 114 to 127 cm. The average weight of maled is 441 g and the average weight of females is 423 g, although females may be slightly larger in size.

Range mass: 423 to 441 g.

Range length: 49 to 65 cm.

Average length: 58 cm.

Range wingspan: 114 to 127 cm.

Average wingspan: 122 cm.

Other Physical Features: endothermic ; homoiothermic; bilateral symmetry

Sexual Dimorphism: sexes alike; female larger

  • Hausman, L. 1948. Birds of Prey of Northeastern America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Size

Length: 58 cm

Weight: 475 grams

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

No other sympatric bird has all of the following characteristics: white head and belly, black wings with white underwing coverts, and a deeply forked black tail.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Swallow-tailed kites occupy wooded swamps, open forests, lake shores, and freshwater marshes. They nest near sources of water in tall trees, anywhere from 18 to 40 meters above the ground.

Range elevation: 0 (low) m.

Habitat Regions: temperate ; tropical ; terrestrial

Terrestrial Biomes: forest

Aquatic Biomes: coastal

Wetlands: marsh ; swamp

Other Habitat Features: riparian

  • Wetmore, A. 1965. Water, Prey, and Game Birds of North America. Chicago: R.R. Donnelley and Sons Co.
  • Weidensaul, S. 2004. The Raptor Almanac. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press.
  • National Geographic Society, 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
  • Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc..
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat and Ecology

Systems
  • Terrestrial
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: This species occupies diverse vegetation types, from sea level to elevations up to 1,850 meters; occasionally individuals wander up to 3,000 meters (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Key features of habitat include tall, accessible trees for nesting and open areas for foraging; arid areas are avoided (Meyer 1995). In the United States, nesting and foraging habitats include various pine forests and savannas, cypress swamps and savannas, cypress-hardwood swamps, hardwood hammocks, mangrove (Avicennia) swamps, narrow riparian forests, prairies, and freshwater and brackish marshes. In the tropics, this kite occurs in humid lowland and upland forests, riparian forests, cloud forests, and pine forests (Meyer 1995, Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Nests are near the tops of trees that are higher than the surrounding stand, presumably to provide easier access to the nest (Brown et al. 1997, Snyder 1974, Meyer 1995, Meyer and Collopy 1995). In south Florida, nest trees were significantly taller than random trees (Meyer and Collopy 1995). Nests most often are 8-38 meters above the ground (Brown et al. 1997, Snyder 1974, Stiles and Skutch 1989). The average nest height in South Carolina was 23 meters; in Florida mean nest height ranged from 18.2-21.7 meters (Cely and Sorrow 1990, Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Pines are the preferred nest trees. Of 151 U.S. nests, 86 percent were in pines, 7 percent in cypress (Taxodium spp.) and 7 percent in mangrove (Meyer 1995). Most nests in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana were in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda; Cely and Sorrow 1990, Meyer 1995). Elsewhere in Louisiana and Texas, nests have been found in cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and water oak (Quercus nigra; Brown et al. 1997, Meyer 1995). In south Florida, 51 percent of nests were in slash pine (Pinus elliottii), 37 percent in cypress, 12 percent in Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) and 6 percent in bay (Persea spp.; Meyer 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Migration

Non-Migrant: No. All populations of this species make significant seasonal migrations.

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

MIGRATION

Temperate and sub-tropical (U.S. and Central America) populations are migratory. Spring migrants begin arriving in the United States (Florida) in early-mid February; fall migrants leave from late July through early September (Meyer 1995, Stevenson and Anderson 1994). In Florida, large numbers (over 2,200) gather in pre-migratory roosts (Bensen 1992, Meyer 1995, Meyer 1998, Millsap 1987, Millsap and Runde 1988). One bird banded as a nestling on Key Largo, Florida was shot approximately 6,500 kilometers away in southeastern Brazil (Mager 1967).

In Costa Rica, migrants arrive between late December and February, and depart between July and September (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Most individuals that breed in the United States migrates southward from Florida to the Yucatan Peninsula across the Gulf of Mexico. Others migrate around the Gulf Coast south through eastern Mexico (see Farmer et al. 2008).

Satellite and VHF telemetry data have revealed a narrow migration corridor through eastern Central America, western Colombia, and southeastward around the margins of the Amazon Basin to southwestern Brazil, where marked birds from the U.S. have been consistently found wintering to the north, south, and southeast of the Pantanal (K. Meyer, unpubl. data).

Wintering kites associate with conspecifics of the southern subspecies, E. f. yetapa, which are breeding at this time, and gather nightly in large communal roosts similar to the pre-migration roosts described in Florida (K. Meyer, unpubl. data).

HOME RANGE AND TERRITORY

This species forages up to 24 kilometers from the nest in South Carolina and 22 kilometers from the nest in south Florida (Cely and Sorrow 1990, Meyer and Collopy 1995). The home ranges of three adults in south Florida that did not make extended forays varied from 5.3-30.8 square kilometers; a fourth adult that made long forays ranged over 117.1 square kilometers (Meyer and Collopy 1995). In South Carolina, five adults ranged over an average of 232 square kilometers (range = 89.2-360.4 square kilometers). However, when long forays were ignored, home range size averaged 12.2 square kilometers (range = 4.9-17.1 square kilometers; Cely and Sorrow 1990). Pairs defend from conspecifics an area extending less than 100 meters away from the nest (Meyer 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Trophic Strategy

Swallow-tailed kites are primarily insectivorous, snatching and feeding on flying insects in mid-air, but they are also known to capture other prey, such as snakes, frogs, and nestlings and fledglings. They do not hover and usually eat prey in mid-flight. They also drink in flight in a fashion similar to swallows, by skimming the water.

Animal Foods: birds; amphibians; reptiles; insects

Primary Diet: carnivore (Eats terrestrial vertebrates, Insectivore )

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Swallow-tailed kites forage by soaring or by flying closely over or under the tree canopy, and over shrubs or grass. Sometimes they forage in large groups composed of 10 to more than 100 individuals. Prey are captured with the talons while in flight by snatching them in the air or off the surface of vegetation. Food items are principally insects (including entire wasp nests) but also include frogs, lizards, snakes, nestling birds and, less frequently, bats, fruit, hatchling alligators, and fish (Meyer 1995, Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Fruit consumption is apparently confined to the tropics (Buskirk and Lechner 1978, Lemke 1979, Stiles and Skutch 1989). In Florida, the stomachs of eight kites collected in mid-July contained 98.5 percent insects, and 2.5 percent arthropods and vertebrates including a spider (Araneae), a mite (Acarina), a green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), an anole (Anolis carolinensis), and a bat (Pipistrellus subflavus). The majority of insects eaten were grasshoppers (Orthoptera; 42.4 percent), leaf-footed bugs (Coreidae; 19.2 percent), and palmetto weevils (Rhynchophorus cruenlatus; 12.7 percent; Lee and Clark 1993).

Observations of kites feeding young in the nest suggest that vertebrates are important food items for nestlings. For example, Snyder (1974) found that insects comprised only 5 percent of the food fed to young in three nests in Florida, whereas 88 percent was comprised of vertebrates (principally hylid frogs). Likewise, insects comprised 27 percent of food fed to young in eight Florida nests, but vertebrates comprised 65 percent (mostly frogs; Meyer and Collopy 1995).

This kite drinks by skimming low over lakes, ponds, rivers, or marshes (Meyer 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Associations

There is little known about the role of wallow-tailed kites in their native ecosystem, although it can be surmised that they help control insect populations.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Little is known about predators of swallow-tailed kites, but fledglings are often preyed on by owls, especially great horned owls (Bubo virginianus).

Known Predators:

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Known prey organisms

Elanoides forficatus preys on:
Tyrannus melancholicus

This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© SPIRE project

Source: SPIRE

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Comments: This species is represented by probably hundreds of local breeding populations, though these are difficult to circumscribe. The U.S. populations has just a few (>=3) premigration staging areas.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Abundance

100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals

Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 100,000 (BirdLife International 2010).

The U.S. population comprises less than 10 percent of the global population (Meyer and Collopy 1990). Meyer (1995) estimated U.S. population at 800-1,150 pairs, or about 3,200-4,600 individuals at the end of the breeding season (Meyer and Collopy 1990). Florida probably supports 60-65% of the U.S. population (Meyer 1995). South Carolina's population, which lost more than 70% of known nesting habitat in 1989 because of Hurricane Hugo, has about 10-15% (or 110 pairs) of the total U.S. population; other southeastern states probably have fewer than 100 pairs each; no known data for other populations.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

This species roosts communally (up to 30 individuals) at night during the nesting period and prior to migration (Bensen 1992, Haverschmidt 1977, Millsap 1987, Meyer 1995, Meyer 1998, Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Potential predators, especially of eggs and young, include common crow, turkey vulture, black vulture, red-shouldered hawk, peregrine falcon, sharp-shinned hawk, bald eagle, osprey, short-tailed hawk, red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, barred owl, raccoon, and monkeys (Gerhardt et al. 1991, cited in Meyer 1995, Meyer and Collopy 1995, Short 1974, Snyder 1974).

Strong winds, especially those associated with storms, can blow young from the nest or topple tall trees used for nesting (Cely and Sorrow 1990, Snyder 1974).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Behavior

Swallow-tailed kites communicate primarily through cries, short, weak, high-pitched whistles, and twitters, usually while hunting or during mating season. They also use visual displays, including postures associated with courtship and mating. Like other raptors, swallow-tailed kites, primarily use vision to hunt for food.

Communication Channels: visual ; acoustic

Perception Channels: visual ; tactile ; acoustic ; chemical

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Expectancy

There is no specific information available on the lifespan of E. forficatus, but the lifespan of one white-tailed kite was recorded to be nearly 6 years.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Swallow-tailed kites are monogamous, although pair bonds are not necessarily maintained between breeding seasons. Females and males will approach each other on a horizontal tree limb. The female will quickly go under the limb or turn, bending forward with the wings extended. The male lands on her back and drapes his wings over the female, then mating occurs. There is also courtship feeding.

Mating System: monogamous

Swallow-tailed kites breed once per year, usually in April. They produce loud shrills, squealing calls, and whistles during the mating season.  Females usually lay two eggs per clutch. The eggs are incubated for approximately 28 days, and the fledgling period lasts anywhere from 36 to 42 days. Fledglings can take an additional 2 weeks or more to become independent.

Breeding interval: Swallow-tailed kites breed once yearly.

Breeding season: The breeding season is short and usually occurs in the month of April.

Range eggs per season: 3 (high) .

Average eggs per season: 2.

Average time to hatching: 28 days.

Range fledging age: 36 to 42 days.

Range time to independence: 50 (low) days.

Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; seasonal breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); sexual ; oviparous

Not much is known about the degree of parental investment in swallow-tailed kites. Both parents incubate the eggs. When one parent comes in to sit on the eggs, the other flies straight up from the nest. The incoming parent hovers over the nest, and then gently settles down. Young are altricial. In their close relatives males bring back food while females watch the young and protect the nest. Towards the end of the nesting period both parents will hunt. After fledging the adults continue to provide food for their young.

Parental Investment: altricial ; pre-fertilization (Provisioning, Protecting: Female); pre-hatching/birth (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Male, Female); pre-weaning/fledging (Provisioning: Male, Female, Protecting: Male, Female); pre-independence (Provisioning: Male, Female)

  • Wetmore, A. 1965. Water, Prey, and Game Birds of North America. Chicago: R.R. Donnelley and Sons Co.
  • National Audubon Society, 2001. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
  • Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc..
  • Johnsgard, P. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Nesting occurs in loose colonies, in groups of 2-5 nests, generally 75-700 meters apart (Meyer 1995). In south Florida, nearest nests averaged 673-730 meters apart (Meyer and Collopy 1995). Individuals often nest near sites that were used previously for nesting by swallow-tailed kites. In south Florida, 77 percent of nests sites were re-used and at 23.5 percent of these the original nest was re-used after being re-furbished. However, because birds were unmarked it is not known if sites were re-used by previous residents (Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Nesting occurs February-May in Costa rica and from early March-early June in the United States (Meyer 1995, Meyer and Collopy 1996, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Clutch size ranges from two to four eggs but is typically two (Terres 1991). The average of 151 U.S. clutches was 2.12 eggs, that of 11 Florida clutches was 1.91 eggs, and that of 18 Guatemala clutches was 1.83 eggs (Gerhardt et al. 1997, Meyer 1995). Incubation, conducted principally by the female, takes approximately 28 days in Florida and averages 31.5 days in Guatemala. Incubation begins when the first egg is laid and hatching is asynchronous (Gerhardt et al. 1997, Snyder 1974). The young are brooded by both sexes, although principally by the female. The nestling period is 36-42 days (Snyder 1974). There is no evidence of second-clutching even after nest or egg failure (Meyer 1995). Brood reduction sometimes occurs when younger nestlings starve or are killed outright by larger nestlings (Gerhardt et al. 1997, Meyer 1995).

Estimates of nesting success (percent of nests that fledged greater than or equal to 1 young) include 33 percent for Guatemala (Gerhardt et al. 1997), 41-80 percent for Florida (Meyer and Collopy 1995), and 72 percent for South Carolina (Cely and Sorrow 1990). Productivity estimates (number of young fledged per nest) for these same studies vary from 0.33 (Guatemala), 0.48-1.27 (Florida), to 1.14 (South Carolina). In Florida, nest success varied by species of nest tree: 78 percent for cypress, 60 percent for slash pine and 17 percent for Australian pine. In addition, nests in more flexible trees failed more often due to wind than nests in more rigid trees (Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Elanoides forficatus

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


There are 3 barcode sequences available from BOLD and GenBank.

Below is a sequence of the barcode region Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI or COX1) from a member of the species.

See the BOLD taxonomy browser for more complete information about this specimen and other sequences.

CCTATACCTAATCTTCGGCGCCTGAGCCGGTATAGTGGGCACCGCCCTTAGCCTACTCATCCGCGCAGAACTTGGACAACCAGGTACTCTCCTAGGTGATGACCAAATTTACAATGTAATCGTAACCGCTCACGCCTTCGTCATAATCTTCTTCATAGTCATACCAATTATAATCGGAGGATTCGGAAACTGACTTGTCCCACTCATAATTGGAGCCCCGGATATAGCCTTCCCCCGAATAAACAACATAAGCTTCTGACTCCTCCCTCCATCCCTACTTCTCCTGCTAGCCTCCTCAACAGTAGAAGCAGGAGCTGGCACTGGGTGAACTGTGTATCCCCCCTTAGCTGGTAACATAGCTCACGCTGGGGCCTCAGTTGACCTAGCAATCTTCTCTCTGCACTTAGCAGGTGTCTCATCCATCCTAGGGGCAATCAACTTCATTACAACTGCCATCAATATAAAACCTCCAGCCCTCTCCCAATACCAAACCCCCCTCTTTGTATGATCCGTCCTCATTACTGCCGTCTTACTGCTACTATCACTCCCCGTCCTAGCTGCTGGCATTACAATACTTCTTACGGACCGAAACCTTAATACCACATTCTTCGACCCTGCTGGAGGAGGTGACCCAATCTTATACCAACATCTANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
-- end --

Download FASTA File

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Elanoides forficatus

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 3
Specimens with Barcodes: 3
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

Elanoides forficatus has not been classified as a threatened species. Before 1980, these birds were found as far as the northern Midwest, but due to logging, draining of swamps, and shooting, populations dwindled and are now found only in the southern U.S., mainly in Florida and tropical habitats during the winter. They are protected by the U.S. Migratory Bird Act.

US Migratory Bird Act: protected

US Federal List: no special status

CITES: no special status

State of Michigan List: no special status

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: least concern

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
LC
Least Concern

Red List Criteria

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2012

Assessor/s
BirdLife International

Reviewer/s
Butchart, S. & Symes, A.

Contributor/s

Justification
This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N3B - Vulnerable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Reasons: Large range makes this species apparently secure on a global basis; trends in most of the range are poorly known; population appears to be increasing at the northern end of the range in the southeastern United States.

Other Considerations: Meyer and Collopy (1990) found high (77%) nest site fidelity (regardless of prior nesting success) and high communal roost site fidelity; reasons for birds not using apparently suitable looking habitat and/or increasing range are not known. Federal status in U.S.: Listed as a Category 2 in 1985, downgraded to 3C in 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service abolished all but C category (formerly C1) in 1996. Meyer and Collopy (1990) regard previous downgrading as unjustified. South Carolina lists species as Endangered (Meyer 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population Trend
Increasing
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Unknown

Comments: Recent global trend is unknown.

Data from the 1990s did not allow an accurate assessment of recent population trends for the U.S. population, although it was clear the species was not experiencing the marked population increases exhibited by other kites (Meyer and Collopy 1996). Analyses of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data were inconclusive. "A cautious assumption that population is stable, with local increases... and decreases" (Meyer 1995). More recently, based on BBS and Christmas Bird Count data, Butcher and Niven (2007) concluded that there is evidence of an increase in the U.S. population. Autumn migration counts around the Gulf of Mexico during 1995-2005 also documented increasing numbers of swallow-tailed kites (Smith et al. 2008) that could reflect a population increase or a shift in migration geography (Farmer et al. 2008).

Global Long Term Trend: Unknown

Comments: Long-term global trend is unknown.

Populations declined significantly in the U.S. between 1880 and 1940 (Cely 1979). The U.S. breeding range once included an estimated 21 states, but is now restricted to portions of seven southeastern states (Meyer 1995). During the 1960s-1980s, many local nesting concentrations in Florida disappeared (Meyer and Collopy 1990).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Degree of Threat: Medium

Comments: Past decline of the U.S. population is attributed to prairie cultivation, wetland drainage, logging of forests, egg collecting, and indiscriminate shooting (Cely 1979, Meyer 1990, Meyer 1995).

Habitat alteration and loss continue at an accelerated pace in the United States. In Florida, most nesting and roosting habitat occurs on private land which is being converted to large-scale agriculture operations. Short-rotation, even-aged pine plantations reduce the number of tall, emergent trees required for nesting. Poor fire management can reduce habitat heterogeneity or reduce the number of nesting or roosting trees (Meyer and Collopy 1995). Threats along migration routes and on the winter range are unknown (Meyer and Collopy 1996).

Low (non-lethal) concentrations of mercury were found in tissues of two nestlings and three adults collected in Florida (Lee and Clark 1993, Meyer 1995). The significance of this as a threat is unknown.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Restoration Potential: Strong fidelity to nest and roost sites inhibits colonization of formerly occupied habitat (Meyer and Collopy 1996). Limited attempts to reintroduce this species to presently unoccupied former range have failed (Meyer 1990). Given the species' biology (e.g., strongly social, delayed breeding, mobile), reintroduction could be difficult, at best (Meyer 1995).

Preserve Selection and Design Considerations: Suitable nesting habitat requires appropriate nest and roost sites within a landscape that provides sufficient prey for successful reproduction. Habitat mosaics with various plant communities such as forests, prairies, and wetlands of various sizes, are essential. Minimum area requirements are difficult to define; where breeding habitat quality is good and prey is abundant and concentrated, 30 square kilometers may be sufficient, but where habitat quality is less suitable and prey is more diffuse, 100-300 square kilometers may be necessary (Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Management Requirements: Tall trees that emerge from the surrounding canopy are essential for nesting. Such trees should be managed for in landscapes dominated by short-rotation, even-aged pine plantations. Nests built in Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), an exotic species, fail at a significantly higher rate than those in native pine (Pinus spp.) or cypress (Taxodium spp.). Where kites nest in large numbers, it may be prudent to reduce the availability of Australian pine as nest sites (Meyer 1990).

Management Programs: Collaborative efforts with Brazilian conservationists are ongoing to protect native habitats at the critical wintering and breeding sites, which are all privately owned agricultural lands (K. Meyer, pers. comm.).

Monitoring Programs: This species is monitored on North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes (Sauer et al. 1997) and irregularly by state wildlife agencies (Millsap and Runde 1988). In Florida, systematic state-wide roost observations would form a good basis for long-term monitoring (K. Meyer, pers. comm.).

Management Research Needs: An accurate means of assessing population changes needs to be developed. Also, nesting and foraging habitat requirements need to be defined, winter habitat requirements need to be determined, prey densities essential for reproductive success need to be examined, and a study of marked individuals is needed to determine age at first breeding, sex ratio, survival, and social behavior (Meyer 1990, Meyer and Collopy 1995).

Biological Research Needs: Better information is needed on demography, migration routes winter biology, and habitat needs. The validity of subspecies designation needs to be examined since this may influence listing status (Meyer 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Protection: Several to many (4-40) occurrences appropriately protected and managed

Comments: Meyer and Collopy (1990) listed seven protected sites among the 16 they considered critically important for nesting and roosting of E. f. forficatus in Florida; virtually nothing is known about protection status of E. f. yetapa.

Needs: This species would benefit from acquisition of key breeding, foraging, and large roost sites.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

There are no known adverse effects of E. forficatus on humans.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Swallow-tailed kites contribute to control of insect populations in habitats they occupy. They are also lovely birds that attract ecotourism.

Positive Impacts: ecotourism ; controls pest population

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Risks

Stewardship Overview: Population appears to have stabilized since 1940, although small changes in numbers occur locally (increasing or decreasing). This species is not experiencing the increase seen in other species of kites. An accurate method of assessing population trends needs to be developed. The species is threatened by extensive loss and alteration of breeding habitat, principally due to wetland drainage, agriculture, and short-rotation tree farming. Demographic studies and determination of threats on migration routes and winter range are urgently needed. Preservation of large tracts of heterogeneous habitat is necessary to ensure population recovery. In the United States, the most pressing need is to identify and protect privately owned nesting and roosting sites to ensure, at a minimum, persistence of the present small population.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Swallow-tailed kite

For the African species, see African swallow-tailed kite

The swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus) is an elanid kite which breeds from the southeastern United States to eastern Peru and northern Argentina. Most North and Central American breeders winter in South America where the species is resident year round. It was formerly named Falco forficatus.

Physical description[edit]

Plate 72 of the Birds of America by John James Audubon, depicting the swallow-tailed "hawk," or kite

The species is 50 to 68 cm (20 to 27 in) in length, with a wingspan of approximately 1.12–1.36 m (3.7–4.5 ft). Male and female individuals appear similar. The body weight is 310–600 g (11–21 oz).[2][3] The body is a contrasting deep black and white. The flight feathers, tail, feet, bill are all black. Another characteristic is the elongated, forked tail at 27.5–37 centimetres (10.8–14.6 in), hence the name swallow-tailed. The wings are also relatively elongated, as the wing chord measures 39–45 cm (15–18 in). The tarsus is fairly short for the size of the bird at 3.3 cm (1.3 in).[4]

Young swallow-tailed kites are duller in color than the adults, and the tail is not as deeply forked.

Habitat and behavior[edit]

Swallow-tailed kite

Swallow-tailed kites inhabit mostly woodland and forested wetlands near nesting locations. Nests are built in trees, usually near water. Both male and female participate in building the nest.

Sometimes a high-pitched chirp is emitted, though the birds mostly remain silent.

Diet[edit]

The swallow-tailed kite feeds on small reptiles, such as snakes and lizards. It may also feed on small amphibians such as frogs; large insects, such as grasshoppers, crickets; small birds and eggs; and small mammals. It has been observed to regularly consume fruit in Central America.[5] It drinks by skimming the surface and collecting water in its beak.

Reproduction[edit]

Mating occurs from March to May, with the female laying 2 to 4 eggs. Incubation lasts 28 days, and 36 to 42 days to fledge.

Conservation in the United States[edit]

Swallow-tailed kites are not listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government in the United States. They are listed as endangered by the state of South Carolina and as threatened by the state of Texas. They are listed as "rare" by the state of Georgia. Destruction of habitats is chiefly responsible for the decline in numbers. A key conservation area is the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge in Florida.

References[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ BirdLife International (2012). "Elanoides forficatus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved 26 November 2013. 
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ Raptors of the World by Ferguson-Lees, Christie, Franklin, Mead & Burton. Houghton Mifflin (2001), ISBN 0-618-12762-3
  5. ^ Buskirk, William; Margaret Lechner (October 1978). "Frugivory by Swallow-Tailed Kites in Costa Rica". The Auk 95: 767–768. 
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Morphological differences between E. f. forficatus and E. f. yetapa are slight and subspecific status of E. f. yetapa has been questioned (Robertson 1988). Formerly named "American Swallow-tailed Kite" (see AOU 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!