Oecologia

, Volume 142, Issue 2, pp 177–183

Predation by sparrowhawks decreases with increased breeding density in a songbird, the great tit

Population Ecology

Abstract

Predators may regulate prey populations if predation rate increases with prey density. Alternatively, if space-limited (e.g. territorial) predators become ‘satiated’ when prey exceed a certain density, increased prey abundance may lead to reduced predation rate. These alternatives have been difficult to test experimentally for mobile prey in the wild. We present such a test, manipulating the density of great tits (Parus major) by adding nest boxes in territories of sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus). Predation rate was measured for young tits after they left the nests. Although the great tit is an important prey, there was no evidence for regulation during the breeding season: the rate of hawk predation declined with increasing density of tits. This result was not confounded by changes in breeding density of alternative prey species (other songbirds). Hawk predation can therefore favour dense breeding in a territorial (solitary) bird, and conspecific attraction and aggregation reported in several territorial species may partly result from predation pressure. This result also has potential implications for conservation work.

Keywords

Conservation Density dependence Field experiment Fledgling prey Predator satiation 

References

  1. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1993) The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol 7. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Crawley MJ (1992) Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Etterson MA (2003) Conspecific attraction in loggerhead shrikes: implications for habitat conservation and reintroduction. Biol Conserv 114:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forman RTT (1999) Land mosaics—the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Foster WA, Treherne JE (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 295:466–467Google Scholar
  7. Geer TA (1978) Effects of nesting sparrowhawks on nesting tits. Condor 80:419–422Google Scholar
  8. Geer TA (1982) The selection of tits Parus spp. by sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus. Ibis 124:159–167Google Scholar
  9. Gosler A (1993) The great tit. Hamlyn, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gosler AG, Greenwood JJD, Perrins C (1995) Predation risk and the cost of being fat. Nature 377:621–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Götmark F (2002) Predation by sparrowhawks favours early breeding and small broods in great tits. Oecologia 130:25–32Google Scholar
  12. Götmark F, Olsson J (1997) Artificial colour mutation: do red-painted great tits experience increased or decreased predation? Anim Behav 53:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Götmark F, Post P (1996) Prey selection by sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus: relative predation risk for breeding passerine birds in relation to their size, ecology, and behaviour. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:1559–1577Google Scholar
  14. Götmark F, Post P, Olsson J, Himmelmann D (1997) Natural selection and sexual dimorphism: sex-biased sparrowhawk predation favours crypsis in female chaffinches. Oikos 80:540–548Google Scholar
  15. Gray IL (1987) The feeding ecology of the sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) outside the breeding season. DPhil Thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theoret Biol 31:295–311Google Scholar
  17. Hudson P (1992) Grouse in space and time: the population biology of a managed gamebird. The Game Conservancy, Fordingbridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Macdonald DW, Mace GM, Barretto GR (1999) The effects of predators on fragmented prey populations: a case study for the conservation of endangered prey. J Zool 247:487–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manly BJF (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in Biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Marler P (1955) Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature 176:6–8Google Scholar
  22. Martin TE (1992) Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies. In: Power DM (ed) Current ornithology, vol 9. Plenum, New York, pp 163–197Google Scholar
  23. McCleery RH, Perrins CM (1991) Effects of predation on the numbers of Great Tits Parus major. In: Perrins CM, Lebreton JD, Hirons GJM (eds) Bird population studies: relevance to conservation and management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 129–147Google Scholar
  24. Mönkkönen M, Härdling R, Forsman JT, Tuomi J (1999) Evolution of heterospecific attraction: using other species as cues in habitat selection. Evol Ecol 13:91–104Google Scholar
  25. Muller KL, Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Willits NH (1997) The effects of conspecific attraction and habitat quality on habitat selection in territorial birds (Troglodytes aedon). Am Nat 150:650–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newton I (1986) The sparrowhawk. Poyser, Calton, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Newton I (1993) Predation and limitation of bird numbers. Curr Ornithol 11:143–198Google Scholar
  28. Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Newton I, Dale L, Rothery P (1997) Apparent lack of impact of sparrowhawks on the breeding densities of some woodland songbirds. Bird Study 44:129–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrins CM, Geer TA (1980) The effect of sparrowhawks on tit populations. Ardea 68:133–142Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds RT, Meslow EC (1984) Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101:761–779Google Scholar
  33. Selås V, Rafoss T (1999) Ranging behaviour and foraging habitats of breeding sparrowhawks in a continuous forest area in Norway. Ibis 141:269–276Google Scholar
  34. Sinclair ARE, Pech RP (1996) Density dependence, stochasticity, compensation and predator regulation. Oikos 75:164–173Google Scholar
  35. Sinclair ARE, Pech RP, Dickman CR, Hik D, Mahon P, Newsome AE (1998) Predicting effects of predation on conservation of endangered prey. Conserv Biol 12:564–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Soulé M (1987) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Spiller DA, Schoener TW (1998) Lizards reduce spider species richness by excluding rare species. Ecology 79:503–516Google Scholar
  39. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomson DL, Green RE, Gregory RD, Baillie SR (1998) The widespread declines of songbirds in rural Britain do not correlate with the spread of their avian predators. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2057–2062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinbergen L (1946) Sperver als Roofvijand van Zangfvogels. Ardea 34:1–123Google Scholar
  42. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Ecology, Department of ZoologyUniversity of GöteborgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations