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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrén H (1990) Despotic distribution, unequal reproductive success, and population regulation in the Jay Garrulus glandarius L. Ecology 71:1796–1803
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 70:831–839
Berg Å (1997) Diversity and abundance of birds in relation to forest fragmentation, habitat quality and heterogeneity. Bird Study 44:355–366
Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Blondel J, Badan O (1976) La biologie du Hibou grand-duc en Provence. Nos Oiseaux 33:189–219
Blondel J, Perret P, Maistre M, Dias PC (1991) Do harlequin Mediterranean environments function as source sink for Blue Tits (Parus caeruleus)? Land Ecol 6:213–219
Blondel J, Dias PC, Maistre M, Perret P (1993) Habitat heterogeneity and life-history variation of Mediterranean Blue Tits (Parus caeruleus). Auk 110:511–520
Boecklen WJ (1986) Effects of habitat heterogeneity on the species-area relationship of forest birds. J Biogeogr 13:59–68
Bollmann K, Reyer HU, Brodmann PA (1997) Territory quality and reproductive success: can water pipits Anthus spinoletta assess the relationship reliably? Ardea 85:83–98
Both C (1998) Density dependence of clutch size: habitat heterogeneity or individual adjustment? J Anim Ecol 67:659–666
Brönmark C (1985) Freshwater snail diversity: effects of pond area, habitat heterogeneity and isolation. Oecologia 67:127–131
Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 3:277–285
Dhondt AA, Schillemans J(1983) Reproductive success of the great tit in relation to its territorial status. Anim Behav 31:902–912
Dobson FS, Oli MK (2001) The demographic basis of population regulation in Columbian Ground Squirrels. Am Nat 158:236–247
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 220–224
Donázar JA (1988) Selección del hábitat de nidificación por el Buho real (Bubo bubo) en Navarra. Ardeola 35:233–245
Drent RH, Daan S (1980) The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea 68:225–252
Ens BJ, Kersten M, Brenninkmeijer A, Hulscher JB (1992) Territory quality, parental effort, and reproductive success of Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). J Anim Ecol 61:703–716
Ferrer M, Donázar JA (1996) Density-dependent fecundity by habitat heterogeneity in an increasing population of Spanish Imperial Eagles. Ecology 77:69–74
Fretwell SD, Lucas JHJ (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36
Frey H (1973) Zur Ökologie niederösterreichischer Uhupopulationen. Egretta 16:1–68
Goodburn SF (1991) Territory quality or bird quality? Factors determining breeding success in the Magpie Pica pica. Ibis 133:85–90
Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski A, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic, San Diego, pp 27–42
Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208
Kadmon R (1993) Population dynamic consequences of habitat heterogeneity: an experimental study. Ecology 74:816–825
Klomp H (1970) The determination of clutch size in birds: a review. Ardea 58:1–124
Kokko H, Sutherland WJ (1998) Optimal floating and queuing strategies: consequences for density dependence and habitat loss. Am Nat 152:354–366
Komdeur J (1992) Importance of habitat saturation and territory quality for evolution of cooperative breeding in the Seychelles warbler. Nature 358:493–495
Korpimäki E (1984) Population dynamics of birds of prey in relation to fluctuations in small mammal populations in western Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 21:287–293
Korpimäki E (1988) Effects of territory quality on occupancy, breeding performance and breeding dispersal in Tengmalm’s Owl. J Anim Ecol 57:97–108
Korpimäki E (1992) Diet composition, prey choice, and breeding success of long-eared owls: effects of multiannual fluctuations in food abundance. Can J Zool 70:2373–2381
Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260
Krüger O, Lindstrom J (2001) Habitat heterogeneity affects population growth in goshawk Accipiter gentilis. J Anim Ecol 70:173–181
Lack D (1966) Population studies of birds. Clarendon Press, Oxford
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 35:69–72
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 29:47–68
Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, London
Marchesi L, Pedrini P, Sergio F (2002) Biases associated with diet study methods in the eagle owl. J Raptor Res 36:11–16
Martin TE (1987) Food as limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487
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 94:417–424
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 326–327
Morris DW (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol Ecol 2:253–269
Morris DW (1991) Fitness and patch selection in white-footed mice. Am Nat 138:702–716
Morris DW (1994) Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol Ecol 8:387–406
Murdoch WW (1994) Population regulation in theory and practice. Ecology 75:271–287
Mysterud I, Dunker H (1982) Food and nesting ecology of the Eagle Owl, Bubo bubo (L.), in four neighbouring territories in Southern Norway. Viltrevy 12:71–113
Naveh Z, Lieberman A (1994) Landscape ecology. Theory and application. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Oli MK, Dobson FS (2001) Population cycles in small mammals: the α hypothesis. J Mammal 82:573–581
Olsson V (1979) Studies of a population of eagle owls, Bubo bubo (L.), in southwest Sweden. Viltrevy 11:1–99
Ostfeld RS, Lidicker WZ Jr, Heske EJ (1985) The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use, and demography in a population of California voles. Oikos 45:433–442
Penteriani V (1996) The eagle owl (in Italian). Calderini Edagricole, Bologna
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 31:308–312
Penteriani V (2002) Variation in the function of the eagle owl vocal behaviour: territorial defence and intra-pair communication? Ethol Ecol Evol 14:275–281
Penteriani V (2003a) Breeding density affects the honesty of bird vocal displays as possible indicators of male/territory quality. Ibis 145:E127–E135
Penteriani V (2003b) Simultaneous effects of age and territory quality on fecundity in Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus. Ibis 145:E77–E82
Penteriani V, Gallardo M, Cazassus H (2000) Diurnal vocal activity of young eagle owls and its implications in detecting occupied nests. J Raptor Res 34:232–235
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 89:331–340
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 257:365–372
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 14:9–17
Potapov ER (1997) What determines the population density and reproductive success of rough-legged buzzards, Buteo lagopus, in the Siberian tundra? Oikos 78:362–378
Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661
Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361
Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225
Ricklefs RE (1983) Avian demography. Curr Ornithol 1:1–32
Rodenhouse NL, Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1997) Site-dependent regulation of population size: a new synthesis. Ecology 78:2025–2042
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 2939–2952
Roese JH, Risenhoover KL, Folse LJ (1991) Habitat heterogeneity and foraging efficiency: an individual-based model. Ecol Model 57:133–143
Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z(1980) Microtine cycles: the role of habitat heterogeneity. Oikos 34:141–146
Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865
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 25:63–67
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New York
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 157–170
Steenhof K, Kochert MN, McDonald TL (1997) Interactive effects of prey and weather on golden eagle reproduction. J Anim Ecol 66:350–362
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 101:28–41
Strauss von MJ, Glück E (1995) Einfluß unterschiedlicher Habitatqualität auf Brutphänologie und Reproduktionserfolg bei Blaumeisen (Parus caeruleus). Vogelwarte 38:10–23
Sutherland WJ (1996) From individual behaviour to population ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Thiollay JM (1990) Comparative diversity of temperate and tropical forest bird communities: the influence of habitat heterogeneity. Acta Ecol 11: 887–911
Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on processes. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197
Virkkala R (1990) Ecology of the Siberian Tit Parus cinctus in relation to habitat quality: effects of forest management. Ornis Scand 21:139–146
Wauters LA, Dhondt AA (1990) Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758) population dynamics in different habitats. Z Säugetierkd 55:161–175
Wauters LA, Lens L (1995) Effects of food availability and density on red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) reproduction. Ecology 76:2460–2469
Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1977) Harem size, territory quality, and reproductive success in the redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Can J Zool 55:1261–1267
Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Territory-specific yearly data of reproductive output (i.e. number of fledglings) of the French population of eagle owls during the 29 years of the study. The years 1973 and 1974 are absent because during this period it was impossible to collect data in the field (–, missing data). Mean number of fledglings, coefficient of reproduction (CV) and percentage of contributing pairs (%) per year was only presented for the 18 years shown in Fig. 1 and during which we were able to obtain data for at least ten territories each year (see details in Materials and methods)
Territories | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | x̄ | CV | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1971 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1972 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1975 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1976 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1977 | 2 | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1978 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 3 | 2 | – | – | 1.7 | 37.4 | 37.5 |
1979 | 2 | – | – | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | 3 | 3 | 1 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 0 | – | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | 1.5 | 50.3 | 35.3 |
1980 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 3 | – | 3 | 1 | – | – | 1.8 | 32.8 | 41.6 |
1981 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | – | 1.5 | 39.6 | 38.1 |
1982 | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | 1 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | 0 | – | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | 1.8 | 49 | 38.1 |
1983 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – |
1984 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1.7 | 31.8 | 40.1 |
1985 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | 0 | – | 2 | – | – | – | 1.6 | 46.6 | 40 |
1986 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | 0 | 2 | – | 0 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 0.9 | 91.3 | 27.3 |
1987 | 1 | 0 | – | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | – | 1.4 | 65 | 33.3 |
1988 | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | 3 | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 1.7 | 44.4 | 38.5 |
1989 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1990 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 1.2 | 71.8 | 33.3 |
1991 | 2 | 1 | – | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | – | 3 | – | – | – | 2.1 | 30 | 40 |
1992 | 2 | – | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | 0 | 2 | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | 1.5 | 56.6 | 40 |
1993 | 0 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 3 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | 1.6 | 67.1 | 40 |
1994 | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | – | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | – | – | 1 | 1.9 | 36.2 | 40 |
1995 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | 2 | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1996 | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | 2 | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 3 | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | 1.9 | 30 | 42.1 |
1997 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1998 | 2 | – | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 25.8 | 43.8 |
1999 | 1 | – | – | 2 | – | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | – | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 3 | 1.5 | 59.6 | 40 |
Appendix 2
Raw data for the eight variables of landscape structure, diet and density (see Materials and methods for details) that we used to explain differences in mean reproductive output and its annual variance within the population. The results of the two forward stepwise multiple regression models that we performed using mean reproductive output and CV as dependent variables are summarised in Table 1
Territoriesa | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 34 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of open country | 19.4 | 29.4 | 30.3 | 26.1 | 29.6 | 22.3 | 60.5 | 38.4 | 49.5 | 74.5 | 43.1 | 31.5 | 12.5 | 55.1 | 53.1 | 45.1 | 26.9 |
Percentage of woodland | 38.2 | 37.2 | 41.8 | 59.3 | 58.5 | 68.1 | 20.7 | 50.2 | 28.7 | 9.3 | 22.8 | 27.1 | 49.6 | 10.6 | 12.8 | 22.8 | 31.6 |
Number of ecotones | 11.5 | 14.9 | 15.1 | 14.5 | 12.3 | 13.5 | 15.4 | 14.1 | 11.2 | 11.9 | 13.5 | 13.1 | 12.8 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 11.9 |
Shannon diversity index | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 2 | 1.8 | 2 | 2 | 1.6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.8 |
NND (m) | 800 | 780 | 1200 | 670 | 1,200 | 1,000 | 760 | 760 | 2,000 | 2,550 | 900 | 3,500 | 3,600 | 1,000 | 1,500 | 1,600 | 2,500 |
Diet richness | 70 | 70 | 30 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 30 | 31 | 68 | 32 | 32 | 65 | 69 | 69 | 32 |
Diet diversity | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
Distance (m) from the nearest patch of open country | 40.7 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 159.8 | 0.0 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.5 | 55.0 | 27.5 | 22.5 | 27.5 | 12.7 | 87.0 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Penteriani, V., Delgado, M.M., Gallardo, M. et al. Spatial heterogeneity and structure of bird populations: a case example with the eagle owl. Popul Ecol 46, 185–192 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-004-0178-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-004-0178-8