Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 53–61 | Cite as

Stay or go? Strong winter feeding site fidelity in small woodland passerines revealed by a homing experiment

  • Anton Krištín
  • Peter Kaňuch
Original Article

Abstract

Many birds exhibit territoriality, which is vital for obtaining resources for survival. Non-migratory birds maintain larger territories in winter than during reproduction, but the degree of their fidelity to these winter home ranges is less well-known. We evaluated the homing success and time of return to home through a field experiment in which we trapped and displaced 1239 individual birds of two tit species, Great Tit (Parus major) and Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), and retrapped 267 of them over two winters (a total of 40 trapping sessions). Displacement of the birds between two sites 7.8 km apart revealed strong fidelity to the winter home range in both species; birds returned on average within 4 weeks. Greater homing success was found in Blue Tits than in Great Tits (45.7 vs. 32.5 % retraps). More individuals returned home from an ecotone site, which included gardens with feeders, than from a forest site (40.9 vs. 29.2 %). Blue Tits homed approximately 1 week more quickly than Great Tits, and similar mean differences were observed when comparing males with females of both species using Kaplar–Meier survival functions. A parametric survival regression model indicated that the difference in homing time between species was not significant, but males of both species returned significantly sooner than females. Moreover, birds that originated from a site with greater food supply homed more quickly, and interaction of sex and site also showed a significant effect in this model. Our evidence suggests that winter territoriality of these woodland passerines is shaped potentially by all tested factors and is an important behavioural characteristic linked with their ability to find limited resources during the harsh period of the year.

Keywords

Passerines Tenacity Displacement trial Non-breeding period Slovakia 

Zusammenfassung

Bleiben oder gehen? Ausgeprägte Treue zum Winterfutterort bei kleinen Sperlingsvögeln, nachgewiesen mit einem Heimfindeexperiment Viele Vögel sind territorial, was für das Erlangen von Ressourcen zum Überleben entscheidend ist. Standvögel behaupten im Winter größere Reviere als während der Brutzeit, aber es ist kaum bekannt, wie stark ihre Treue zu diesen Winter-Aktionsräumen ist. In einem Freilandexperiment haben wir den Heimfindeerfolg und die Zeit bis zur Heimkehr untersucht. Wir haben 1239 Individuen zweier Arten, Kohlmeise (Parus major) und Blaumeise (Cyanistes caeruleus), gefangen und verfrachtet und 267 davon in zwei Wintern (insgesamt 40 Fangperioden) wiedergefangen. Die Verfrachtung der Vögel zwischen zwei 7.8 km entfernten Gebieten zeigte bei beiden Arten eine ausgeprägte Treue zum Winter-Aktionsraum; im Durchschnitt kehrten die Tiere nach vier Wochen zurück. Der Heimfindeerfolg war bei Blaumeisen höher als bei Kohlmeisen (45.7 vs. 32.5 % Wiederfänge). Mehr Individuen kehrten aus Saumbiotopen (inklusive Gärten mit Futterspendern) als aus Waldgebieten heim (40.9 vs. 29.2 %). Blaumeisen kamen etwa eine Woche schneller zurück als Kohlmeisen, und ähnliche durchschnittliche Unterschiede wurden beobachtet, wenn Männchen und Weibchen bei beiden Arten mittels Kaplan–Meier-Überlebensfunktionen verglichen wurden. Ein parametrisches Überlebens-Regressionsmodell zeigte, dass der Unterschied in der Heimfindezeit zwischen den Arten nicht signifikant war, jedoch die Männchen beider Arten signifikant früher als die Weibchen zurückkehrten. Darüber hinaus fanden Vögel, die aus einem Gebiet mit größerer Nahrungsverfügbarkeit stammten, schneller heim, und die Interaktion zwischen Geschlecht und Gebiet war in diesem Modell ebenfalls signifikant. Unsere Befunde deuten darauf hin, dass die Winterterritorialität dieser Wald-Sperlingsvögel möglicherweise von allen hier untersuchten Faktoren beeinflusst wird und ein wichtiges Verhaltensmerkmal darstellt, das mit ihrer Fähigkeit, in der rauen Jahreszeit knappe Ressourcen zu finden, zusammenhängt.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Marek Veľký and Peter Tuček for field assistance. Milan Barna and Katarína Střelcová provided climatic data. We appreciate the improvements in English usage made by Peter Lowther through the Association of Field Ornithologists’ program of editorial assistance. Valuable comments and suggestions of two anonymous referees helped to improve the manuscript. This study was supported by the Slovak Scientific Grant Agency VEGA (Grants 2/0097/16 and 2/0035/13). All handling and ringing was performed by experts provided with the appropriate permits issued by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (No. 269/132/05-5.1pil and 7230/2008-2.1pil).

References

  1. Adams ES (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Báldi A, Csörgő T (1994) Roosting site fidelity of great tits (Parus major) during winter. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 40:359–367Google Scholar
  3. Báldi A, Csörgő T (1997) Spatial arrangement of roosting great tits (Parus major) in a Hungarian forest. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 43:295–301Google Scholar
  4. Belda JE, Barba E, Monrós JS (2007) Resident and transient dynamics, site fidelity and survival in wintering blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla: evidence from capture-recapture analyses. Ibis 149:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin MJ (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benvenuti S, Ioale P (1980) Homing experiments with birds displaced from their wintering ground. J Ornithol 121:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridge ES, Kelly JF, Contina A, Gabrielson RM, Maccurdy RB, Winkler DW (2013) Advances in tracking small migratory birds: a technical review of light-level geolocation. J Field Ornithol 84:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L (1997) Changes in foraging behaviour of the coal tit Parus ater due to snow cover. Ardea 85:249–257Google Scholar
  10. Bumerl J (1974) Die raumorientierung einiger vertreter der gattung Parus. Acta Sci Natur Mus Bohem Merid České Budějovice 14 2:37–54Google Scholar
  11. Catry P, Catry I, Catry T, Martins T (2003) Within and between-year winter-site fidelity of chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita. Ardea 91:213–220Google Scholar
  12. Cepák J, Klvaňa P, Škopek J, Schröpfer L, Jelínek M, Hořák D, Formánek J, Zárybnický J (2008) Atlas migrace ptáků české a Slovenské republiky [czech and slovak bird migration atlas]. Aventinum, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  13. Chamberlain DE, Vickery JA, Glue DE, Robinson RA, Conway GJ, Woodburn JW, Cannon AR (2005) Annual and seasonal trends in the use of garden feeders by birds in winter. Ibis 147:563–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke AL, Saether BE, Roskaft E (1997) Sex biases in avian dispersal: a reappraisal. Oikos 79:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowie RJ, Hinsley SA (1988) The provision of food and the use of bird feeders in suburban gardens. Bird Study 35:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cramp S (1993) The Birds of the western Palearctic, vol 7. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Creutz G (1949) Verfrachtungen mit Kohl—und Blaumeisen (Parus m. major und Parus c. caeruleus). Vogelwarte 15:78–93Google Scholar
  18. Creutz G (1962) Das revierverhalten der kohlmeise ausserhalb der brutzeit. Der Falke Sonderh 4:75–79Google Scholar
  19. Davies NB (1980) The economics of territorial behaviour in birds. Ardea 68:63–74Google Scholar
  20. De Laet J (1984) Site-related dominance in the Great Tit Parus major. Ornis Scand 15:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Desrochers A, Belisle M, Morand-Ferron J, Bourque J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landsc Ecol 26:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deutschlander ME, Beason RC (2014) Avian navigation and geographic positioning. J Field Ornithol 85:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dhondt AA (1966) A method to establish boundaries of bird territories. Gerfaut 56:404–408Google Scholar
  24. Dhondt AA (1979) Summer dispersal and survival of juvenile great tits in southern Sweden. Oecologia 42:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dhondt AA (2012) Interspecific competition in birds. Oxford Univeristy Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. East ML, Hofer H (1986) The use of radio-tracking for monitoring great tit Parus major behaviour: a pilot study. Ibis 128:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Estoup A, Guillemaud T (2010) Reconstructing routes of invasion using genetic data: why, how and so what? Mol Ecol 19:4113–4130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Glutz UN, Bauer KM (1993) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 13/I Passeriformes 4. Teil. AULA, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  29. Gobeil JF, Villard MA (2002) Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations. Oikos 98:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwood PJ, Harvey PH (1982) Natal and breeding dispersal in birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grubb TC (1987) Changes in the flocking behaviour of wintering English titmice with time, weather and supplementary food. Anim Behav 35:794–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen K (1978) Migration and dispersal in Danish great tits. Dansk Ornitol Foren Tidsskr 72:97–104Google Scholar
  33. Harvey PH, Greenwood PJ, Perrins CM (1979) Breeding area fidelity of great tits (Parus major). J Anim Ecol 48:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hildén O, Saurola P (1982) Speed of autumn migration of birds ringed in Finland. Ornis Fenn 259:140–143Google Scholar
  35. Jenni L, Winkler R (1994) Moult and ageing of European passerines. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1990) Evolution of dispersal: theoretical models and empirical tests using birds and mammals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:449–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnstone I (1998) Territory structure of the robin Erithacus rubecula outside the breeding season. Ibis 140:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keiser JT, Ziegenfuss WS, Cristol DA (2005) Homing success of migrant versus nonmigrant dark-eyed Juncos (Junco hyemalis). Auk 122:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kempenaers B, Dhondt AA (1991) Competition between blue and great tit for roosting sites in winter: an aviary experiment. Ornis Scand 22:73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koivula K, Lahti K, Orell M, Rytkönen S (1993) Prior residency as a key determinant of social dominance in willow tit (Parus montanus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krištín A, Mihál I, Urban P (2001) Roosting of great tit, Parus major, and the nuthatch, Sitta europaea, in nest boxes in an oak-hornbeam forest. Folia Zool 50:43–53Google Scholar
  42. Krištín A, Hoi H, Valera F, Hoi C (2007) Philopatry, dispersal patterns and nest-site reuse in lesser grey shrikes (Lanius minor). Biodiv Conserv 16:987–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kropil R (1996) Structure of the breeding bird assemblage of the fir-beech primeval forest in the West Carpathians (badín nature reserve). Folia Zool 45:311–324Google Scholar
  44. Naef-Daenzer B (1994) Radiotracking of great and blue tits: new tools to assess territoriality, home-range use and resource distribution. Ardea 82:335–347Google Scholar
  45. Naef-Daenzer B (2000) Patch time allocation and patch sampling by foraging great and blue tits. Anim Behav 59:989–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Naef-Daenzer B, Grüebler MU (2014) Effects of radio-tag characteristics and sample size on estimates of apparent survival. Anim Biotelemetry 2:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nilsson ALK, Lindström A, Jonzen N, Nilsson SG, Karlsson L (2006) The effect of climate change on partial migration—the blue tit paradox. Glob Chang Biol 12:2014–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nowakowski JK, Vähätalo AV (2003) Is the great tit Parus major an irruptive migrant in North-east Europe? Ardea 91:231–244Google Scholar
  49. Papi F (1992) Animal homing. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Payevsky VA (2006) Mortality rate and population density regulation in the great tit, Parus major L.: a rewiew. Russ J Ecol 37:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pusey AE (1987) Sex-biased dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 2:295–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  53. Rabenold KN, Rabenold PP (1985) Variation in altitudinal migration, winter segregation, and site tenacity subspecies of dark-eyed juncos the southern appalachians. Auk 102:805–819Google Scholar
  54. Sandell M, Smith H (1991) Dominance, prior occupancy, and winter residency in the great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stauss MJ, Burkhardt JF, Tomiuk J (2005) Foraging flight distances as a measure of parental effort in blue tits Parus caeruleus differ with environmental conditions. J Avian Biol 36:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Therneau TM, Lumley T (2015) Survival analysis. http://cran.r-project.org/package=survival. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  57. Tokka I (2006) Space use by Great Tits in winter: a radiotracking study. Proceedings of Abstracts of the Edward Grey International Student Conference, Haren, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  58. Veľký M, Krištín A (2010) Zmeny v aktivite sýkoriek na kŕmidlách počas zimy [changes in the activity of tits on bird tables during winter]. Tichodroma 22:25–32Google Scholar
  59. Villard MA, Haché S (2012) Conifer plantations consistently act as barriers to movement in a deciduous forest songbird: a translocation experiment. Biol Conserv 155:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wells JV, Rosenberg KV, Dunn EH, Tessaglia DH, Dhondt AA (1998) Feeder counts as indicators of spatial and temporal variation in winter abundance of resident birds. J Field Ornithol 69:577–586Google Scholar
  61. Winkel W (1974) Über verfrachtungem von kohl—und blaumeisen ausserhalb der brutzeit im nordwestdeutschen küstenraum. Vogelwarte 27:264–278Google Scholar
  62. Winkel W, Frantzen M (1989) Ortstreue, emigration und lebensalter von kohlmeisen in braunschweiger raum. Vogelwarte 35:64–79Google Scholar
  63. Ydenberg R (1984) Great tits and giving-up times: decision rules for leaving patches. Behaviour 90:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forest EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations