Naturwissenschaften

, 94:859 | Cite as

Experimental evidence for species-specific habitat preferences in two flycatcher species in their hybrid zone

Short Communication

Abstract

Hybrid zones are often found in areas where the environmental characteristics of native habitat of both parental species meet. One of the plausible mechanisms that maintain species distinctiveness, or limit hybridization, is the existence of local species-specific preferences for the natal habitat type. We evaluated this hypothesis for two passerine bird species, the pied Ficedula hypoleuca and collared flycatcher F. albicollis, in their narrow hybrid zone in Central Europe. Both species have quite distinct habitat distributions, and they have also been reported to differ in their foraging niches. In a series of aviary experiments, we demonstrated that both species show distinct preferences for trees from their native area. The pied flycatcher preferred coniferous vegetation, while the collared flycatcher favored deciduous vegetation. In addition, both species differed in foraging substrate preferences. The pied flycatcher preferred to forage in the lower strata on the ground than the canopy, whereas the collared flycatcher foraged more at the canopy level. Both males and females of each species were highly consistent in their preference patterns. Due to the widespread nature of hybrid zones as places with transitional habitat features and the well-known habitat tight associations of various animal taxa with particular habitat types, we propose that habitat preferences might be an important and common mechanism that enhances the formation of conspecific pairs.

Keywords

Ficedula flycatchers Habitat selection Hybridization Hybrid zone 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank R. T. Holmes, M. Krist, E. Svensson, E. Tkadlec, K. Weidinger, and several anonymous referees for their valuable comments. This study was supported by GAČR (206/03/0215, 206/07/0316) and MŠMT ČR (153100010, 6198959212). The experiments carried out in this study comply with the current laws of the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Alatalo RH (1979) Resource partitioning among flycatcher guild in Finland. Oikos 33:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alerstam T, Ebenman B, Sylvén M, Tamm S, Ulfstrand S (1978) Hybridization as an agent of competition between two bird allospecies: Ficedula albicollis and F. hypoleuca on the island of Gotland in the Baltic. Oikos 31:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold ML (1997) Natural hybridization and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1985) Analysis of hybrid zones. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 16:113–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beltman JB, Metz JAJ (2005) Speciation: more likely through a genetic or through a learned habitat preference? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1455–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlocher SH, Feder JL (2002) Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy? Annu Rev Entomol 47:773–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borge T, Lindroos K, Nádvorník P, Syvänen AC, Saetre GP (2005) Amount of introgression in flycatcher hybrid zones reflects regional differences in pre and post-zygotic barriers to gene exchange. J Evol Biol 18:1416–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureš S (1995) Comparison of diet in collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis) and the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) nestlings in a hybrid zone. Folia Zool 44:247–257Google Scholar
  9. Bureš S, Weidinger K (2003) Sources and timing of calcium intake during reproduction in flycatchers. Oecologia 137:634–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1993) The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol 7. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Edington JM, Edington MA (1972) Spatial patterns and habitat partition in the breeding birds of an upland wood. J Anim Ecol 41:331–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen JT, DeJong MJ (1981) Intrinsic factors in the selection of foraging substrates by pine warblers: a test of an hypothesis. Auk 98:294–298Google Scholar
  13. Gee JM (2003) How a hybrid zone is maintained: behavioural mechanisms of interbreeding between California and Gambel’s Quail (Callipepla californica and C. gambelii). Evolution 57:2407–2415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lockwood JR III (1998) On the statistical analysis of multiple-choice feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 116:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lundberg A, Alatalo RV (1992) The pied flycatcher. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore WS (1977) An evaluation of narrow hybrid zones in vertebrates. Q Rev Biol 52:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parrish JD (1995) Experimental evidence for intrinsic microhabitat preferences in the black-throated green warbler. Condor 97:935–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Patten MA, Rotenberry JT, Zuk M (2004) Habitat selection, acoustic adaptation, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58:2144–2155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Saetre GP, Moum T (2000) A simple molecular method for species identification of pied and collared flycatchers. Hereditas 132:171–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saetre GP, Moum T, Bureš S, Král M, Adamjan M, Moreno J (1997) A sexually selected character displacement in flycatchers reinforces premating isolation. Nature 387:589–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saetre GP, Král M, Bičík V (1993) Experimental evidence for interspecific female mimicry in sympatric Ficedula flycatchers. Evolution 47:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saetre GP, Král M, Bureš S, Ims RA (1999a) Dynamics of a clinal hybrid zone and a comparison with island hybrid zones of flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca and F. albicollis). J Zool Lond 247:53–64Google Scholar
  23. Saetre GP, Post E, Král M (1999b) Can environmental fluctuation prevent competitive exclusion in sympatric flycatchers? Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1247–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saetre GP, Borge T, Lindell J, Moum T, Primmer CR, Sheldon BC, Haavie J, Johnsen A, Ellegren H (2001) Speciation, introgressive hybridization and nonlinear rate of molecular evolution in flycatchers. Mol Ecol 10:737–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS Institute (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s guide online documentation. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  26. von Haartman L (1954) Der Trauerfliegenschnäpper III. Die Nahrungsbiologie. Acta Zool Fenn 83:1–96Google Scholar
  27. Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities, vol 1. Foundations and patterns. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 373–406Google Scholar
  28. Yanchukov A, Hofman S, Szymura JM, Mezhzherin SV, Morozov-Leonov SY, Barton NH, Nurnberger B (2006) Hybridization of Bombina bombina and B. variegata (Anura, Discoglossidae) at a sharp ecotone in western Ukraine: comparisons across transects and over time. Evolution 60:583–600PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museum of Natural HistoryOlomoucCzech Republic
  2. 2.Laboratory of OrnithologyPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations