Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 185–192 | Cite as

Spatial heterogeneity and structure of bird populations: a case example with the eagle owl

  • Vincenzo PenterianiEmail author
  • María del Mar Delgado
  • Max Gallardo
  • Miguel Ferrer
Original Article

Abstract

If individuals of the same population inhabit territories different in landscape structure and composition, experiencing habitat-specific demographic rates, then the landscape features become major determinants of the overall population characteristics. Few studies have tested how habitat-specific demography interacts with landscape heterogeneity to affect populations of territorial species. Here we report a 29-year study of an eagle owl (Bubo bubo) population in southern France. The aim of this study was to analyse how habitat heterogeneity could affect density and breeding performance. Mean productivity for the overall sample was 1.69±0.76 fledglings per breeding pair and, after controlling for year effect, significant differences between territories were detected for productivity. A positive correlation was found between the percentage of pairs producing 50% of the annual fledged young (an index of the distribution of fecundity among nesting territories) and the mean reproductive outputs, that is the heterogeneous structure of the population determined that most/all pairs contributed to the annual production of young during good years, but the opposite during poor years (i.e. fewer pairs produced the majority of fledglings). Mean reproductive output was positively affected by percentage of open country and diet richness. Although other factors different to territory quality could affect demography parameters (e.g. quality of breeders), our results clearly showed a significant correlation between landscape features and population productivity.

Keywords

Spatial heterogeneity Territory quality Breeding performance Coefficient of variation Bird populations Eagle owl (Bubo bubo

Notes

Acknowledgments

D. Becker, M. Forero, O. Krüger, M. Mönkkönen, N. L. Rodenhouse, T. Sota and three anonymous referees made a useful critique of the first draft of the manuscript. We thank P. Roche for helping with the IDRISI program, H. Magnin, C. Horisberger and P. Horisberger and O. Maubec for the logistic help during the fieldwork. During the study, V.P. received a research grant from the Regional Park of Luberon (France) and a post-doctoral grant from the Estación Biológica de Doñana (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain).

References

  1. Andrén H (1990) Despotic distribution, unequal reproductive success, and population regulation in the Jay Garrulus glandarius L. Ecology 71:1796–1803Google Scholar
  2. Aron S, Keller L, Passera L (2001) Role of resource availability on sex, caste and reproductive allocation ratios in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. J Anim Ecol 70:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg Å (1997) Diversity and abundance of birds in relation to forest fragmentation, habitat quality and heterogeneity. Bird Study 44:355–366Google Scholar
  4. Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel J, Badan O (1976) La biologie du Hibou grand-duc en Provence. Nos Oiseaux 33:189–219Google Scholar
  6. Blondel J, Perret P, Maistre M, Dias PC (1991) Do harlequin Mediterranean environments function as source sink for Blue Tits (Parus caeruleus)? Land Ecol 6:213–219Google Scholar
  7. Blondel J, Dias PC, Maistre M, Perret P (1993) Habitat heterogeneity and life-history variation of Mediterranean Blue Tits (Parus caeruleus). Auk 110:511–520Google Scholar
  8. Boecklen WJ (1986) Effects of habitat heterogeneity on the species-area relationship of forest birds. J Biogeogr 13:59–68Google Scholar
  9. Bollmann K, Reyer HU, Brodmann PA (1997) Territory quality and reproductive success: can water pipits Anthus spinoletta assess the relationship reliably? Ardea 85:83–98Google Scholar
  10. Both C (1998) Density dependence of clutch size: habitat heterogeneity or individual adjustment? J Anim Ecol 67:659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brönmark C (1985) Freshwater snail diversity: effects of pond area, habitat heterogeneity and isolation. Oecologia 67:127–131Google Scholar
  12. Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 3:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhondt AA, Schillemans J(1983) Reproductive success of the great tit in relation to its territorial status. Anim Behav 31:902–912Google Scholar
  14. Dobson FS, Oli MK (2001) The demographic basis of population regulation in Columbian Ground Squirrels. Am Nat 158:236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donázar JA (1987) Geographic variations in the diet of the Eagle Owls in Western Mediterranean Europe. In: Nero RW, Clark RJ, Knapton RJ, Hamre RH (eds) Biology and conservation of northern forest owl. General Technical Report RM-142. USDA, Fort Collins, pp 220–224Google Scholar
  16. Donázar JA (1988) Selección del hábitat de nidificación por el Buho real (Bubo bubo) en Navarra. Ardeola 35:233–245Google Scholar
  17. Drent RH, Daan S (1980) The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea 68:225–252Google Scholar
  18. Ens BJ, Kersten M, Brenninkmeijer A, Hulscher JB (1992) Territory quality, parental effort, and reproductive success of Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). J Anim Ecol 61:703–716Google Scholar
  19. Ferrer M, Donázar JA (1996) Density-dependent fecundity by habitat heterogeneity in an increasing population of Spanish Imperial Eagles. Ecology 77:69–74Google Scholar
  20. Fretwell SD, Lucas JHJ (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36Google Scholar
  21. Frey H (1973) Zur Ökologie niederösterreichischer Uhupopulationen. Egretta 16:1–68Google Scholar
  22. Goodburn SF (1991) Territory quality or bird quality? Factors determining breeding success in the Magpie Pica pica. Ibis 133:85–90Google Scholar
  23. Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski A, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic, San Diego, pp 27–42Google Scholar
  24. Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208Google Scholar
  25. Kadmon R (1993) Population dynamic consequences of habitat heterogeneity: an experimental study. Ecology 74:816–825Google Scholar
  26. Klomp H (1970) The determination of clutch size in birds: a review. Ardea 58:1–124Google Scholar
  27. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ (1998) Optimal floating and queuing strategies: consequences for density dependence and habitat loss. Am Nat 152:354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Komdeur J (1992) Importance of habitat saturation and territory quality for evolution of cooperative breeding in the Seychelles warbler. Nature 358:493–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korpimäki E (1984) Population dynamics of birds of prey in relation to fluctuations in small mammal populations in western Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 21:287–293Google Scholar
  30. Korpimäki E (1988) Effects of territory quality on occupancy, breeding performance and breeding dispersal in Tengmalm’s Owl. J Anim Ecol 57:97–108Google Scholar
  31. Korpimäki E (1992) Diet composition, prey choice, and breeding success of long-eared owls: effects of multiannual fluctuations in food abundance. Can J Zool 70:2373–2381Google Scholar
  32. Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260Google Scholar
  33. Krüger O, Lindstrom J (2001) Habitat heterogeneity affects population growth in goshawk Accipiter gentilis. J Anim Ecol 70:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lack D (1966) Population studies of birds. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Leditznig C (1992) Telemetric study in the Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo) in the foreland of the Alps in Lower Austria—methods and first results. Egretta 35:69–72Google Scholar
  36. Leditznig C (1996) Habitatwahl des Uhus (Bubo bubo) im Südwesten Niederösterreichs und in den donaunahen Gebieten des Mühlviertels auf Basis radiotelemetrischer Untersuchungen. Abh Zool-Bot Ges Österreich 29:47–68Google Scholar
  37. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Marchesi L, Pedrini P, Sergio F (2002) Biases associated with diet study methods in the eagle owl. J Raptor Res 36:11–16Google Scholar
  39. Martin TE (1987) Food as limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McPeek MA, Rodenhouse NL, Holmes RT, Sherry TW (2001) A general model of site-dependent population regulation: population-level regulation without individual-level interactions. Oikos 94:417–424Google Scholar
  41. Mikkola H (1994) Eagle owl. In: Tucker GM, Heath MF (eds) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Birdlife conservation series, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 326–327Google Scholar
  42. Morris DW (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol Ecol 2:253–269Google Scholar
  43. Morris DW (1991) Fitness and patch selection in white-footed mice. Am Nat 138:702–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris DW (1994) Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol Ecol 8:387–406Google Scholar
  45. Murdoch WW (1994) Population regulation in theory and practice. Ecology 75:271–287Google Scholar
  46. Mysterud I, Dunker H (1982) Food and nesting ecology of the Eagle Owl, Bubo bubo (L.), in four neighbouring territories in Southern Norway. Viltrevy 12:71–113Google Scholar
  47. Naveh Z, Lieberman A (1994) Landscape ecology. Theory and application. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Oli MK, Dobson FS (2001) Population cycles in small mammals: the α hypothesis. J Mammal 82:573–581Google Scholar
  49. Olsson V (1979) Studies of a population of eagle owls, Bubo bubo (L.), in southwest Sweden. Viltrevy 11:1–99Google Scholar
  50. Ostfeld RS, Lidicker WZ Jr, Heske EJ (1985) The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use, and demography in a population of California voles. Oikos 45:433–442Google Scholar
  51. Penteriani V (1996) The eagle owl (in Italian). Calderini Edagricole, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  52. Penteriani V (1997) Long-term study of a goshawk breeding population on a Mediterranean mountain (Abruzzi Apennines, Central Italy): density, breeding performances and diet. J Raptor Res 31:308–312Google Scholar
  53. Penteriani V (2002) Variation in the function of the eagle owl vocal behaviour: territorial defence and intra-pair communication? Ethol Ecol Evol 14:275–281Google Scholar
  54. Penteriani V (2003a) Breeding density affects the honesty of bird vocal displays as possible indicators of male/territory quality. Ibis 145:E127–E135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Penteriani V (2003b) Simultaneous effects of age and territory quality on fecundity in Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus. Ibis 145:E77–E82Google Scholar
  56. Penteriani V, Gallardo M, Cazassus H (2000) Diurnal vocal activity of young eagle owls and its implications in detecting occupied nests. J Raptor Res 34:232–235Google Scholar
  57. Penteriani V, Gallardo M, Roche P, Cazassus H (2001) Effects of landscape spatial structure and composition on the settlement of the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo in a Mediterranean habitat. Ardea 89:331–340Google Scholar
  58. Penteriani V, Gallardo M, Roche P (2002a) Landscape structure and food supply affect eagle owl Bubo bubo density and breeding performance: a case of intra-population heterogeneity. J Zool 257:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Penteriani V, Faivre B, Mazuc J, Cezilly F (2002b) Pre-laying vocal activity as a signal of male and nest stand quality in goshawks. Ethol Ecol Evol 14:9–17Google Scholar
  60. Potapov ER (1997) What determines the population density and reproductive success of rough-legged buzzards, Buteo lagopus, in the Siberian tundra? Oikos 78:362–378Google Scholar
  61. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  64. Ricklefs RE (1983) Avian demography. Curr Ornithol 1:1–32Google Scholar
  65. Rodenhouse NL, Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1997) Site-dependent regulation of population size: a new synthesis. Ecology 78:2025–2042Google Scholar
  66. Rodenhouse NL, Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1999) Multiple mechanisms of population regulation: contributions of site dependence, crowding, and age structure. In: Proceedings of international ornithological congress, vol 22, pp 2939–2952Google Scholar
  67. Roese JH, Risenhoover KL, Folse LJ (1991) Habitat heterogeneity and foraging efficiency: an individual-based model. Ecol Model 57:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z(1980) Microtine cycles: the role of habitat heterogeneity. Oikos 34:141–146Google Scholar
  69. Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simmons RE, Avery DM, Avery G (1991) Biases in diets determined from pellets and remains: correction factors for a mammal and bird-eating raptor. J Raptor Res 25:63–67Google Scholar
  71. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Steenhof K (1987) Assessing raptor reproductive success and productivity. In: Pendleton G, Millsap BA, Cline KW, Bird DM (eds) Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, pp 157–170Google Scholar
  73. Steenhof K, Kochert MN, McDonald TL (1997) Interactive effects of prey and weather on golden eagle reproduction. J Anim Ecol 66:350–362Google Scholar
  74. Steenhof K, Kochert MN, Carpenter LB, Lehman RN (1999) Long-term prairie falcon population changes in relation to prey abundance, weather, land uses, and habitat conditions. Condor 101:28–41Google Scholar
  75. Strauss von MJ, Glück E (1995) Einfluß unterschiedlicher Habitatqualität auf Brutphänologie und Reproduktionserfolg bei Blaumeisen (Parus caeruleus). Vogelwarte 38:10–23Google Scholar
  76. Sutherland WJ (1996) From individual behaviour to population ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  77. Thiollay JM (1990) Comparative diversity of temperate and tropical forest bird communities: the influence of habitat heterogeneity. Acta Ecol 11: 887–911Google Scholar
  78. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on processes. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Virkkala R (1990) Ecology of the Siberian Tit Parus cinctus in relation to habitat quality: effects of forest management. Ornis Scand 21:139–146Google Scholar
  80. Wauters LA, Dhondt AA (1990) Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758) population dynamics in different habitats. Z Säugetierkd 55:161–175Google Scholar
  81. Wauters LA, Lens L (1995) Effects of food availability and density on red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) reproduction. Ecology 76:2460–2469Google Scholar
  82. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1977) Harem size, territory quality, and reproductive success in the redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Can J Zool 55:1261–1267Google Scholar
  83. Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Penteriani
    • 1
    Email author
  • María del Mar Delgado
    • 1
  • Max Gallardo
    • 2
  • Miguel Ferrer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied BiologyEstación Biológica de Doñana, C.S.I.C.SevilleSpain
  2. 2.Parc Naturel Régional du LuberonAptFrance

Personalised recommendations