Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 218–225 | Cite as

Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communites?

  • Mikko Mönkkönen
  • Pekka Helle
  • Kimmo Soppela
Original Papers

Summary

We studied experimentally interspecific competition among foliage-gleaning passerine birds by manipulating the density of resident tits. In 1988 tit density was experimentally increased on three small islands in a central Finnish lake, and decreased on three other islands by tit removal. In order to avoid the effects of between-island differences in habitat quality, the role of the islands was reversed when the experiment was repeated in the following year. Censuses and observations on foraging and feeding behaviour were conducted to assess the numerical and behavioural responses of migrant conguilders (mainly chaffinches and willow warblers) with respect to the manipulated abundance of the tits. We also measured whether variation in food consumption of tits affected the frequency with which the migrants found food by calculating average intervals between successful prey captures, time lags to prey-capture and giving-up times. Our results indicate that interspecific competition is of minor importance in structuring breeding bird assemblages and species feeding ecologies on the study islands. No consistent difference in foraging or feeding niches of chaffinches and willow warblers was found between low and high tit density conditions. Niche overlap analysis showed no avoidance by chaffinches and willow warblers of the microhabitats which tits used. Tit abundance had no significant effect on feeding success or behaviour. Experimentally increased abundance of resident birds was associated with increased abundance of breeding migrants, however. This pattern was found not only in the foliage gleaning guild but also with all passerine birds, indicating that food was not an important contributor to this pattern. We elaborate a hypothesis suggesting heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird assemblages. Habitat generalist migrants may use the presence of residents as an indicator of safe and/or productive breeding sites in northern unpredictable circumstances.

Key words

Interspecific competition Passerine birds Community structure Niche shifts Boreal forest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbot I, Abbot LK, Grant PR (1977) Comparative ecology of Galápagos ground finches (Geospiza Gould): evaluation of the importance of floristic diversity and interspecific competition. Ecol Monogr 47:151–184Google Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1986) Character displacement and niche shifts analysed using consumer-resource models of competition. Theor Popul Biol 29:107–160Google Scholar
  3. Alatalo RV (1982) Multidimensional foraging niche organization of foliage-gleaning birds in Northern Finland. Ornis Scand 13:56–71Google Scholar
  4. Alatalo RV, Gustafsson L, Lindén M, Lundberg A (1985) Interspecific competition and niche shifts in tits and the golderest: an experiment. J Anim Ecol 54:977–984Google Scholar
  5. Alatalo RV, Eriksson D, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (1987) Exploitation competition influences the use of foraging sites by tits: experimental evidence. Ecology 68:284–290Google Scholar
  6. Anon (1970) Recommendations for an international standard for a mapping method in bird census work. In: Svensson S (ed) Bird census work and environmental monitoring. (Bull Ecol Res Com no 9) NFR, Stockholm, pp 49–52Google Scholar
  7. Bradley DW (1985) The effects of visibility bias on time-budged estimates of niche breadth and overlap. Auk 102:493–499Google Scholar
  8. Brawn JD, Boecklen WJ, Balda RP (1987) Investigations of density interactions among breeding birds in ponderosa pine forests: correlative and experimental evidence. Occologia 72:348–357Google Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 460–490Google Scholar
  10. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696Google Scholar
  11. Connor EF, Bowers MA (1987) The spatial consequences of interspecific competition. Ann Zool Fenn 24:213–226Google Scholar
  12. Dhondt AA, Eyckerman R (1980) Competition between the Great Tit and the Blue Tit outside the breeding season in field experiments. Ecology 61:1291–1296Google Scholar
  13. Diamond JM (1978) Niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition. Am Sci 66:322–331Google Scholar
  14. Diamond JM (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In: Diamond JM, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology, Harper and Row, New York, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  15. Enemar A, Sjöstrand B (1972) Effects of the introduction of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca on the composition of a passerine bird community. Ornis Scand 3:79–89Google Scholar
  16. Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monographs 46:257–291Google Scholar
  17. Garcia EFJ (1983) An experimental test of competition for space between Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla and garden warblers Sylvia borin in the breeding season. J Anim Ecol 52:795–805Google Scholar
  18. Giller PS (1984) Community structure and the niche. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustafsson L (1987) Interspecific competition lowers fitness in Collared Flycatchers Ficedula albicollis: an experimental demonstration. Ecology 68:291–296Google Scholar
  20. Haapanen A (1965) Bird fauna of the Finnish forests in relation to forest succession. I. Ann Zool Fenn 2:153–196Google Scholar
  21. Haila Y (1982) Hypothetico-deductivism and the competition controversy in ecology. Ann Zool Fenn 19:255–263Google Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1978) Some comments on the measurement of niche metrics. Ecology 59:168–174Google Scholar
  23. Herrera CM (1978a) Ecological correlates of residence and nonresidence in a Mediterranean passerine bird community. J Anim Ecol 47:871–890Google Scholar
  24. Herrera CM (1978b) On the breeding distribution pattern of European migrant birds: MacArthur's theme reexamined. Auk 95:496–509Google Scholar
  25. Hildén O (1965) Habitat selection in birds. Ann Zool Fenn 2:54–75Google Scholar
  26. Högstedt G (1980) Prediction and test of the effects of interspecific competition. Nature 283:64–66Google Scholar
  27. Hogstad O (1975) Quantitative relations between hole-nesting and open-nesting species within a passerine breeding community. Norw J Zool 23:261–267Google Scholar
  28. Holt RD (1987) On the relation between niche overlap and competition: the effect of incommensurable niche dimensions. Oikos 48:110–114Google Scholar
  29. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427Google Scholar
  30. Kalela O (1952) Eläinpopulaatioiden optimitiheydestä ja ryhmien välisestä valinnasta (in Finnish). Arch Soc Zool Bot Fenn ‘Vanamo’ 6:130–136Google Scholar
  31. Lack D (1948) Notes on the ecology of the Robin. Ibis 90:252–279Google Scholar
  32. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  35. Martin TE (1986) Competition in breeding birds: on the importance of considering processes at the level of the individual. In: Johnston RF (ed) Current Ornithol 4, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 181–210Google Scholar
  36. May RM (1975) Some notes on estimating the competition matrix, α. Ecology 56:737–741Google Scholar
  37. McNair JN (1982) Optimal giving-up times and the marginal value theorem. Am Nat 119:511–529Google Scholar
  38. Minot EO (1981) Effects of interspecific competition for food on breeding Blue and Great Tits. J Anim Ecol 50:375–386Google Scholar
  39. Mönkkönen M (1984) Metsäsukkession vaikutukset Pohjois-Savon metsälinnustoon (in Finnish). Siivekäs 5:40–50Google Scholar
  40. Mönkkönen M (1990) Spatial relationships of resident and migrant birds: a playback method and preliminary results. Proc XI Int Congr Bird Census and Atlas Studies, Prague, August 28–Sept. 1, 1989 (in press)Google Scholar
  41. Mönkkönen M, Helle P (1987) Avian reproductive output in European forest successions. Oikos 50:239–246Google Scholar
  42. Morse DH (1989) American warblers. Harvard Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Nilsson SG, Ebenman B (1981) Density changes and niche differences in island and mainland Willow Warblers Phylloscopus trochilus at a lake in southern Sweden. Ornis Scand 12:62–67Google Scholar
  44. O'Connor RJ (1981) Comparisons between migrant and non-migrant birds in Britain. In: Aidley DJ (ed) Animal migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 167–195Google Scholar
  45. Palmgren P (1930) Quantitativen Untersuchungen über die Vogel Fauna in den Wäldern Südfinnlands mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Ålands. Acta Zool Fenn 7:1–218Google Scholar
  46. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger individuals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266Google Scholar
  47. Reed TM (1982) Interspecific territoriality in the Chaffinch and Great Tit on island and mainland of Scotland: playback and removal experiments. Anim Behav 30:171–181Google Scholar
  48. Renkonen O (1938) Statisch-öklogische Untersuchungen über die terrestrische Käferwelt der Finnischen Bruchmoore. Ann Zool Soc ‘Vanamo’ 6:1–119Google Scholar
  49. S≸ther B-E (1983) Mechanism of interspecific spacing out in a territorial system of the Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita and the Willow Warbler P. trochilus. Ornis Scand 14:154–160Google Scholar
  50. Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. Am Sci 70:586–595Google Scholar
  51. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285Google Scholar
  52. Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1988) Habitat selection by breeding American Redstarts in response to a dominant competitor, the Least Flycatcher. Auk 105:350–364Google Scholar
  53. Slagsvold T (1980) Habitat selection in birds: on the presence of other bird species with special regard to Turdus pilaris. J Anim Ecol 49:523–536Google Scholar
  54. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347Google Scholar
  55. Strong DR Jr, Szyska LA, Simberloff D (1983) Tests of community-wide character displacement against null-hypotheses. Evolution 33:897–913Google Scholar
  56. Strong DR Jr, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle AB (eds) (1984) Ecological communities: Conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  57. Svärdson G (1949) Competition and habitat selection in birds. Oikos 1:157–174Google Scholar
  58. Ulfstrand S (1977) Foraging niche dynamics and overlap in a guild of passerine birds in a South Swedish coniferous woodland. Oecologia 27:23–45Google Scholar
  59. Virkkala R (1988) Foraging niches of foliage-gleaning birds in the northernmost taiga in Finland. Ornis Fenn 65:104–113Google Scholar
  60. Welden CW, Slauson WL (1986) The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Quart Rey Biol 61:23–44Google Scholar
  61. Wiens JA (1977) On competition and variable environments. Am Sci 65:590–597Google Scholar
  62. Wiens JA (1984) On understanding a non-equilibrium world: myth and reality in community patterns and processes. In: Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle AB (eds) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 439–457Google Scholar
  63. Wiens JA (1989a) The ecology of bird communities. Vol 1. Foundations and patterns. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiens JA (1989b) The ecology of bird communities. Vol 2. Processes and variations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams JB, Batzli GO (1979) Competition among bark-foraging birds in Central Illinois: experimental evidence. Condor 81:122–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikko Mönkkönen
    • 1
  • Pekka Helle
    • 2
  • Kimmo Soppela
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Meltaus Game Research StationFinnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteMeltausFinland

Personalised recommendations