Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 41, Issue 1–2, pp 23–33 | Cite as

Competition and predation models applied to the case of the sibling birds species ofHippolais in Burgundy

  • Bruno Faivre
  • Pierre M. Auger


We study the case of two sibling species ofHippolais(Aves). Very little differences can be observed in the morphology of both species. The breeding area of these species are complementary. Roughly, one species breeds North and East of Europe (Hippolais icterina) while the other breeds South and West of Europe (Hippolais polyglotta). There exitst a narrow zone of sympatry passing through Burgundy. Since several years, it has been observed that this area of sympatry was moving in the North-East direction at a European scale. This means that progressivelyH. icterina is declining and is replaced byH. polyglotta. Some assumptions can be made in order to explain this evolution, for instance competition or predation. Series of observations concerning the diets of nestlings of both species have been realized. These observations show some differences in the diet compositions. The breeding success of the two species has been studied. Numerical simulations of a competition model taking into account the observed differences between the food types eaten by the two species are presented. These simulations do not explain the regression ofH. icterina. Then, we present numerical simulations of a predation model with one predator attacking the nestlings of both species. These simulations show that with time one of the two preys must extinct. Predation rather than competition seems to be the right explanation.


Bird Species Diet Composition Breeding Success Food Type Sibling Species 
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. Auger, P. (1989). Dynamics and Thermodynamics in Hierarchically Organized Systems. Applications in Physics, Biology and Economics. Oxford, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blondel, J. (1986). Biogeographie Évolutive. Paris, Masson.Google Scholar
  3. Cody, M.L. (1969). Convergence characteristics in sympatric species: a possible relation to interspecific competition and aggression. The Condor 71: 222–239.Google Scholar
  4. Cody, M.L. (1974). Competition and the structure of bird communities. Princeton, Princeton university press.Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, J.M. (1975). Assembly of species communities. In: M.L. Cody and J.M. Diamond, eds., Ecology and Evolution of Communities, 342–444. Cambridge MA, Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond, J.M. (1978). Niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition. Am. Sci. 66: 322–331.Google Scholar
  7. Elton, C.S. (1927). Animal Ecology. London, Sidgwick and Jackson.Google Scholar
  8. Faivre, B. et C. Ferry (1989). La regression du Grand Contrefaisant (Hippolais icterina) en Bourgogne. Aves (actes du tième colloque international d'ornithologie, Liège 1988): 153–166.Google Scholar
  9. Ferry, C. (1962). La zone de contact des deux Contrefaisants en Côte d'Or. Le Jean le Blanc 1: 47–51.Google Scholar
  10. Ferry, C. (1975). Des Fauvettes bilingues. La Recherche 58: 486–487.Google Scholar
  11. Ferry, C. (1980). Oiseaux (le chant des). Problèmes de compréhension entre les espèces. Encyclopedia Universalis, thèmes et problèmes: 323–326.Google Scholar
  12. Henry, C. (1979). Ecologie d'une communauté de Passereaux paludicoles. Thèse de doctorat. Université d'Orléans.Google Scholar
  13. Hespenheide, H.A. (1971). Food preference and the extent of overlap in some insectivorous birds, with special reference to the Tyrannidae. Ibis 113: 59–72.Google Scholar
  14. Hutchinson, G.E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Quant. Biol. 22: 415–427.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchinson, G.E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? The American Naturalist 93: 145–159.Google Scholar
  16. Kendeigh, S.G. (1961). Animal Ecology. Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Lack D. (1971). Ecological Isolation in Birds. Blackwell Scientific Publ. Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. MacArthur, R.H. (1968). The theory of the niche. In: R.C. Lewontin, ed., Population Biology and Evolution, 159–17. Syracuse, Syracuse university press.Google Scholar
  19. MacArthur, R.H. (1972). Geographical Ecology. New York, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. MacArthur, R.H. and R. Levins (1967). The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. The american naturalist 101: 377–385.Google Scholar
  21. Mayr, E. (1974). Populations, Espèces et Évolution. Paris, Hermann.Google Scholar
  22. Mayfield, M.F. (1975). Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87: 456–466.Google Scholar
  23. Murray, B.G. (1971). The ecological consequences of interspecific territorial behaviour in birds. Ecology 52: 414–423.Google Scholar
  24. Roughgarden, J. (1979). Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: an Introduction. New York, MacMillan.Google Scholar
  25. Simberloff, D. (1982). The status of competition theory in ecology. Ann. Zool. Fennici 19: 241–253.Google Scholar
  26. Wiens, J.A. (1977). On competition and variable environments. Am. Sci. 65: 590–597.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Faivre
    • 1
  • Pierre M. Auger
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'EcologieBâtiment MirandeDijon CédexFrance
  2. 2.URA CNRS 243Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Villeurbanne CédexFrance

Personalised recommendations