Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 286–297 | Cite as

The relative importance of prey availability and intruder pressure in feeding territory size regulation by harriers, Circus cyaneus

  • E. J. Temeles
Original Papers

Summary

The relative importance of prey availability and intruder pressure in the regulation of harrier (Circus cyaneus) territory size was investigated over two years using analytical methods chosen to permit comparison with Myers et al. (1979) study of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Relationships between territory area and two variables, prey type (mice; large, medium, and small birds) and intruder type (conspecific neighbors, conspecific floaters, and heterospecific floaters), and the consistency of these relationships between years, also were examined. Individual harrier territory areas were highly variable, ranging from 7.8 to 1249 ha in 1984/1985, and 3.9 to 71.3 ha in 1985/1986. Of the prey variables, only mouse availability was significantly inversely correlated with territory area in both years, and slopes resulting from correlations between the logarithms of these two variables did not differ significantly from — 1, the expected result if harriers were adjusting mouse availabilities. The abundance of mice in conjunction with their greater ease of capture relative to birds made them functionally more available, and hence harriers' primary prey. This may explain why mice, rather than birds, were apparently the defended resource. Of the intruder variables, neighbor variables were most strongly inversely cortelatd with territory area. Partial correlation analyses to determine the relative importance of intruder pressure and prey availability in regulating territory size revealed that in 1984/1985, mouse availability and intruder pressure were relatively independent and each explained some variation in territory area, whereas in 1985/1986, mouse availability, rather than intruder pressure, significantly explained all variation in territory area. Possible explanations for why territory sizes of harriers appear to be regulated more closely by food density, whereas territory sizes of sanderlings appear to be regulated more closely by intruder pressure, are based upon differences in 1) neighbor effects, 2) environmental ronmental variability, and 3) accuracy of resource assessment by intruders. The variation in intruder rates and prey availabilities observed between years suggests the need to conduct studies over several years in order to assess accurately the relative importance of these variables in territory-size regulation.

Key words

Territory-size regulation Intruder rates Prey densities Foraging Northern Harriers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 79:272–312Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1950) Instructions for making bird population studies. Aud Field Notes 4:183–187Google Scholar
  3. Bildstein KL, Collopy MW (1985) Escorting flight and agonistic interactions in wintering northern harriers. Condor 87:398–401Google Scholar
  4. Collopy MW, Bildstein KL (1987) Foraging behavior of northern harriers wintering in southeastern salt and freshwater marshes. Auk 104:11–16Google Scholar
  5. Daniel WW (1978) Applied nonparametric statistics. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dill LM, Ydenberg RC, Fraser AGH (1981) Food abundance and territory size in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch). Can J Zool 59:1801–1809Google Scholar
  7. Dixon WJ, Brown MB, Engelman L, Frane JW, Hill MA, Jennrich RI, Toporek JD (1983) BMDP statistical software. Univ. California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewald PW, Carpenter FL (1978) Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna hummingbird. Oecologia (Berlin) 31:277–292Google Scholar
  9. Foutz RV (1980) A method for constructing exact tests from test statistics that have unknown null distributions. J Statis Comput Simul 10:187–193Google Scholar
  10. Frost SK, Frost PGH (1980) Territoriality and changes in resource use by sunbirds at Leonotis leonurus (Labiatae). Oecologia (Berlin) 45:109–116Google Scholar
  11. Gass CL, Angehr G, Centa J (1976) Regulation of food supply by feeding territoriality in the rufous hummingbird. Can J Zool 54:2046–2054Google Scholar
  12. Getty T (1981) Territorial behavior of eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus): encounter avoidance and spatial time-sharing. Ecology 62:915–921Google Scholar
  13. Hixon MA (1980) Food production and competitor density as the determinants of feeding territory size. Am Nat 115:510–530Google Scholar
  14. Kendall MG (1971) Rank correlation methods, 4th ed. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Krebs JR (1971) Territory and breeding density in the great tit, Parus major L. Ecology 52:2–22Google Scholar
  16. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  17. Mares MA, Lacher TE Jr, Willig MR, Bitar NA, Adams R, Klinger A, Tazik D (1982) An experimental analysis of social spacing in Tamias striatus. Ecology 63:267–273Google Scholar
  18. McFarland DC (1986) Determinants of feeding territory size in the New Holland honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae. Emu 86:180–185Google Scholar
  19. McNair JN (1987) The effect of variability on the optimal size of a feeding territory. Am Zool (in press)Google Scholar
  20. McNicol RE, Noakes DLG (1984) Environmental influences on territoriality of juvenile brook char, Salvelinus fontinalis, in a stream environment. Environ Biol Fish 10:29–42Google Scholar
  21. Myers JP, Connors PG, Pitelka FA (1979) Territory size in wintering sanderlings: the effects of prey abundance and intruder density. Auk 99:551–561Google Scholar
  22. Myers JP, Connors PG, Pitelka FA (1981) Optimal territory size and the sanderling: compromises in a variable environment. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 135–158Google Scholar
  23. Norman MD, Jones GP (1984) Determinants of territory size in the pomacentrid reef fish, Parma victoriae. Oecologia (Berlin) 61:60–69Google Scholar
  24. Norton ME, Arcese P, Ewald PW (1982) Effect of intrusion pressure on territory size in black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri). Auk 99:761–764Google Scholar
  25. Paton DC, Carpenter FL (1984) Peripheral foraging by territorial rufous hummingbirds: defense by exploitation. Ecology 65:1808–1819Google Scholar
  26. Robbins CS (1981) Reappraisal of the winter bird-population study technique. In: Ralph CJ, Scott JM (eds) Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Stud Avian Biol 6:52–57Google Scholar
  27. Ryan BF, Joiner BL, Ryan TA Jr (1985) Minitab handbook, 2nd ed. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Schnabel ZE (1938) The estimation of the total fish population of a lake. Am Mathe Monthly 45:348–352Google Scholar
  29. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  30. Schoener TW (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:608–629Google Scholar
  31. Schoener TW, Schoener A (1982) Intraspecific variation in homerange size in some Anolis lizards. Ecology 63:809–823Google Scholar
  32. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical methods, 6th ed. Iowa State Univ Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  34. Temeles EJ (1985) Sexual size dimorphism of bird-eating hawks: the effect of prey vulnerability. Am Nat 125:485–499Google Scholar
  35. Temeles EJ (1986) Reversed sexual size dimorphism: effect on resource defense and foraging behaviours of nonbreeding northern harriers. Auk 103:70–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations