Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 239–243 | Cite as

The effect of prey consumption on territorial defense by harriers: differential responses to neighbors versus floaters

  • E. J. Temeles


Food consumption may reduce fighting intensity of territory owners by decreasing resource value (additional food cannot be consumed) and/or increasing fighting costs (food in the digestive tract may raise injury risks). A territorial harrier's (Circus cyaneus, adult females) decision to reduce its level of aggression should depend upon whether or not the intruder was a competitor for individual prey items (as are smaller male floaters) or for the territory proper (as are female floaters and especially female neighbors). Accordingly, following meals, aggressive intensity of owners was strongly reduced towards male floaters (more were ignored), slightly reduced towards female floaters (more were called at than chased), and remained unchanged towards neighbors (virtually all were chased). Hence, alterations in aggressive behavior of territory owners following food consumption may depend upon the type of intruder and the resource under contest (a food item or a territory).


Aggressive Behavior Food Item Adult Female Food Consumption Digestive Tract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 79:272–312Google Scholar
  2. Austad SN (1983) A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Anim Behav 31:59–73Google Scholar
  3. Bildstein KL, Collopy MW (1985) Escorting flight and agonistic interactions in wintering northern harriers. Condor 87:398–401Google Scholar
  4. Dixon WJ, Brown MB, Engelman L, Frane JW, Hill MA, Jennrich RI, Toporek JD (1983) BMDP statistical software. University California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. Ewald PW, Carpenter FL (1978) Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna hummingbird. Oecologia (Berlin) 31:277–292Google Scholar
  6. Ewald PW, Orians GH (1983) Effects of resource depression on use of inexpensive and escalated behavior: experimental tests using Anna hummingbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:95–101Google Scholar
  7. Fienberg SE (1970) The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology 51:419–433Google Scholar
  8. Hixon MA (1982) Energy maximizers and time minimizers: theory and reality. Am Nat 119:596–599Google Scholar
  9. Jenkins SH (1975) Food selection by beavers: a multidimensional contingency table analysis. Oecologia (Berlin) 21:157–173Google Scholar
  10. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1978) Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual dimorphism on territoriality of migrant rufous hummingbirds. Ecology 59:285–296Google Scholar
  11. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175Google Scholar
  12. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243Google Scholar
  13. Parker GA, Rubenstein DI (1981) Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Anim Behav 29:221–240Google Scholar
  14. Pennycuick C (1972) Animal flight. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Riechert SE (1978) Games spiders play: behavioral variability in territorial disputes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:135–162Google Scholar
  16. Schoener TW (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:608–629Google Scholar
  17. Temeles EJ (1986) Reversed sexual size dimorphism: effect on resource defense and foraging behaviors of nonbreeding northern harriers. Auk 103:70–78Google Scholar
  18. Temeles EJ (1987) The relative importance of prey availability and intruder pressure in feeding territory size regulation by harriers, Circus cyaneus. Oecologia (Berlin) 74:286–297Google Scholar
  19. Temeles EJ (1989) Effect of prey consumption on foraging activity of northern harriers. Auk (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Toft CA (1984a) Resource shifts in bee flies (Bombyliidae): interactions among species determine choice of resources. Oikos 43:104–112Google Scholar
  21. Toft CA (1984b) Activity budgets of two species of bee flies (Lordotus: Bombyliidae, Diptera): a comparison of species and sexes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:287–296Google Scholar
  22. Ydenberg RC, Giraldeau LA, Falls JB (1988) Neighbors, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Anim Behav 36:343–347Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. J. Temeles
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations