Skip to main content
Log in

Habitat selection of two locally sympatric species ofEmberiza buntings (E. citrinella and E. hortulana)

Habitatwahl zweier sympatrischerEmberiza-Ammern (E. citrinella undE. hortulana)

  • Published:
Journal für Ornithologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) and the Ortolan Bunting (E. hortulana) are locally-sympatric on a burned forest area in Norway where we investigated whether they differed in habitat selection. Territories of Ortolan Buntings were in areas with lower vegetation density than those of Yellowhammers, and as a consequence they tended to be in areas with shorter trees and further from farmland than Yellowhammers. A previous study in the same area found that Ortolan Buntings used farmland up to 2.7 km from their territories for foraging, and here we report that Yellowhammers also used farmland outside territories. Overall, Yellowhammers settled in areas with denser vegetation, which were closer to attractive farmland feeding areas, than Ortolan Buntings. The differences in habitat choice did not result from competitive exclusion of the migratory Ortolan Buntings by the resident and heavier Yellowhammers close to farmland, for (1) interspecific territory overlap was larger than intraspecific overlap, (2) few observations of interspecific aggression were made, and (3) playback of song elicited no interspecific responses. Thus, settlement of Ortolan Buntings was not restricted by Yellowhammers, and their differences in habitat were apparently due to different preferences. The observation that both species obtained food outside territories in another habitat argues against food resource partitioning being the cause of differences in nesting habitat. Instead, we argue that nest site partitioning may play a role in nesting habitat segregation between these sympatric species.

Zusammenfassung

Goldammer und Ortolan kommen auf Brandflächen in Norwegen sympatrisch vor. Dort wurde ihre Habitatwahl untersucht. Die Reviere von Ortolanen lagen vornehmlich in Flä chen mit geringer Vegetationsdichte, niedrigeren Bäumen und sie waren weiter von Ackerland entfernt als die Reviere der Goldammern. Beide Arten nutzen zur Nahrungssuche auch Flächen außerhalb der Reviere, beim Ortolan bis zu 2,7 km entfernt. Die Unterschiede in der Habitatwahl waren nicht durch kompetitiven Ausschluss der Ortolane durch die größere und nicht-wegziehende Goldammer bestimmt. Die überlappung benachbarter Reviere war zwischen den beiden Arten nicht größer als innerhalb der jeweiligen Art, aggressives Verhalten wurde kaum beobachtet und Klangattrappen bewirkten keine interspezifischen Antworten. Es darf deshalb geschlossen werden, dass die Habitat wahl der Ortolane eine verschiedenen Präferenz entstammt. Dabei spricht die Beobachtung, dass beide Arten auch weit außerhalb der jeweiligen Reviere in anderen Habitaten nach Nahrung suchten, gegen die Annahme, dass die unterschiedlichen Bruthabitate die Folge der Nutzung ähnlicher Nahrungsressourcen sind. Vielmehr wird angenommen, dass beide Arten ähnliche Neststandorte wählen und sich dann über verschiedene Bruthabitatwahl aus dem Weg gehen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berg, T. (1994): Hortulan på et brannfelt i Elverum 1982–1993. Vår Fuglefauna 17: 14–18. (In Norwegian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bülow, B. von (Ed., 1997): Il. Ortolan-Symposium, Westfalen 1996. Gelsenkirchen-Buer.

  • Cody, M. L. (1974): Competition and the structure of bird communities. Princeton.

  • Cody, M. L. (Ed., 1985): Habitat selection in birds. Orlando.

  • Connell, J. H. (1980): Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35: 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrads, K. (1968): Zur ökologie des Ortolans (Emberiza hortulana) am Rande der Westfälischen Bucht. Vogelwelt 2 (suppl.): 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramp, S. & Perrins, C. M. (1994): The birds of the western Palearctic. Vol. IX: buntings and new world warblers. Oxford.

  • Dale, S. (1997): The Ortolan Bunting - an endangered species in Norway. Vår Fuglefauna 20: 33–38. (In Norwegian with English summary).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, S. (2000): The importance of farmland for Ortolan Buntings nesting on raised peat bogs. Ornis Fenn. 77: 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, S. & Hagen, Ø. (1997): Population size, distribution and habitat choice of the ortolan buntingEmberiza hortulana in Norway. Fauna norv. Set. C, Cinclus 20: 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, S. & Olsen, B. F. G. (2002): Use of farmland by Ortolan Buntings nesting on a burned forest area. J. Ornithol. 143: 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. & Case, T. J. (Eds., 1986): Community ecology. New York.

  • Gates, J. E. & Gysel, L. W. (1978): Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59: 871–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjershaug, J. O., Thingstad, P. G., Eldoy, S. & Byrkjeland, S. (1994): Norsk fugleatlas. Klæbu, Norway (in Norwegian).

  • Götmark, F., Blomqvist, D., Johansson, O. C. & Bergkvist, J. (1995): Nest site selection: a tradeoff between concealment and view of the surroundings? J. Avian Biol. 26: 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinde, R. A. (1956): The biological significance of the territories of birds. Ibis 98: 340–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lack, D. (1968): Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. London.

  • Lack, D. (1971): Ecological isolation in birds. Oxford.

  • MacArthur, R. H., MacArthur, J. W. & Preer, J. (1962): On bird species diversity. 11. Prediction of bird census from habitat measurements. Am. Nat. 96: 167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. (1987): Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 453–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. (1988a): On the advantage of being different: nest predation and the coexistence of bird species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 2196–2199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T.E. (1988b): Processes organizing opennesting bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? Evol. Ecol. 2: 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. (1988c): Habitat and area effects on forest bird assemblages: is nest predation an influence? Ecology 69: 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. (1996): Fitness costs of resource overlap among coexisting bird species. Nature 380: 338–340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. E. (1998): Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? Ecology 79: 656–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1998): Population limitation in birds. San Diego.

  • Orians, G. H. & Willson, M. F. (1964): Interspecific territories of birds. Ecology 45: 736–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrins, C. M. & Birkhead, T. R. (1983): Avian ecology. Glasgow.

  • Reed, T. M. (1982): Interspecific territoriality in the chaffinch and great tit on islands and the mainland of Scotland: playback and removal experiments. Anim. Behav. 30: 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs, R. E. (1969): An analysis of nestling mortality in birds. Smiths. Comr. Zool. 9: 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, (1989): JMP user’s guide. Cary, North Carolina.

  • Schoener, T. W. (1968): Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49: 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T. W. (1974): Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, H. M. (Ed., 1994): 1. Ortolan-Symposium Wien 1992. Wien.

  • Wallgren, H. (1954): Energy metabolism of two species of the genus Emberiza as correlated with distribution and migration. Acta Zool. Fenn. 84: 1–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsberg, G. E. (1985): Physiological consequences of microhabitat selection. In: Cody, M. L. (Ed.): Habitat selection in birds: 389–413. Orlando.

  • Wiens, J. A. (1989): The ecology of bird communities. Cambridge, UK.

  • Wiens, J. A. & Rotenberry, J. T. (1979): Diet niche relationships among North American grassland and shrubsteppe birds. Oecologia 42: 253–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With, K. A. & Webb, D. R. (1993): Microclimate of ground nests: the relative importance of radiative cover and wind breaks for three grassland species. Condor 95: 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dale, S., Manceau, N. Habitat selection of two locally sympatric species ofEmberiza buntings (E. citrinella and E. hortulana). J Ornithol 144, 58–68 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02465517

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02465517

Keywords

Navigation