PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2014 | 63 | 1 | 45-53
Article title

Mechanizmy agregowania terytoriów lęgowych przez ptaki śpiewające*

Content
Title variants
EN
Mechanisms of clustering breeding territories by songbirds
Languages of publication
PL EN
Abstracts
PL
Proces wybiórczości środowiskowej prowadzi do zróżnicowanego rozmieszczenia osobników w czasie i przestrzeni. Agregacje terytoriów stanowią wzorzec rozmieszczenia będący formą pośrednią pomiędzy gniazdowaniem kolonijnym a rozproszonym. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiamy różnorodne hipotezy tłumaczące powstawanie i utrzymywanie przestrzennych agregacji terytoriów u ptaków śpiewających. Hipotezy te podzieliliśmy na cztery grupy, jako kryterium przyjmując mechanizm prowadzący do powstawania agregacji. W pierwszej kolejności przedstawiamy hipotezy tłumaczące, w jaki sposób nierównomierne rozmieszczenie zasobów w środowisku może prowadzić do grupowania się osobników w przestrzeni. Drugą grupę stanowią hipotezy, zgodnie z którymi agregacje są efektem wykorzystywania przez osobniki informacji socjalnych w procesie wybiórczości środowiskowej. Następnie charakteryzujemy hipotezy tłumaczące powstawanie i utrzymywanie agregacji terytoriów na skutek działania doboru płciowego. Hipotezy ujęte przez nas w ostatniej grupie zwracają uwagę na korzyści, jakie osobniki gniazdujące blisko siebie odnoszą w kontaktach z drapieżnikami, stąd powstawanie agregacji terytoriów tłumaczą jako strategię antydrapieżniczą. Choć przedstawione przez nas hipotezy można podzielić na cztery, wyraźnie odmienne grupy, w rzeczywistości nie wykluczają się wzajemnie, a różnorodne mechanizmy prowadzące do formowania agregacji terytoriów mogą działać równolegle.
EN
Habitat selection process leads to differentiated spatio-temporal distribution of individuals in habitat patches. Territory aggregations represent a distribution pattern intermediate between breeding colonies and diffuse occurrence. We present various hypotheses that were raised to explain formation and maintenance of spatial aggregation of territories in songbirds. We divided these hypotheses into four groups, using mechanism leading to the formation of aggregation as a criterion. We first present hypotheses, that explain how spatial variation in resources can lead to clustered distribution of individuals. The second group includes hypotheses, according to which territories' aggregations are the result of using social information in habitat selection process by individuals. Subsequently we characterize hypotheses which explain how sexual selection can lead to formation of territories clusters. Hypotheses included by us in the last group highlight benefits gained by individuals occupying clustered territorie's in the context of predators activity. Although hypotheses presented can be divided into four distinctly different groups, they are not mutually exclusive, and, in nature, various mechanisms can lead to clustered distribution at the same time.
Keywords
Journal
Year
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
45-53
Physical description
Dates
published
2014
Contributors
  • Zakład Biologii i Ekologii Ptaków, Instytut Biologii Środowiska, Wydział Biologii, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Polska
  • Zakład Biologii i Ekologii Ptaków, Instytut Biologii Środowiska, Wydział Biologii, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Polska
References
  • Ahlering M. A., Arlt D., Betts M. G., Fletcher R. J., Nocera J. J., Ward M. P., 2010. Research needs and recommendations for the use of conspecific-attraction methods in the conservation of migratory songbirds. Condor 112, 252-264.
  • Allee W. C., 1951. Cooperation among Animals, with Human Implications. Henry Schuman, New York.
  • Bourski O. V., Forstmeier W., 2000. Does interspecific competition affect territorial distribution of birds? A long-term study on Siberian Phylloscopus warblers. Oikos 88, 341-350.
  • Calsbeek R., Sinervo B., 2002. An experimental test of the ideal despotic distribution. J. Animal Ecol. 71, 513-523.
  • Clark K. L., Robertson R. J., 1979. Spatial and temporal multi-species nesting aggregations in birds as anti-parasite and anti-predator defenses. Behav. Ecol. Sociol. 5, 359-371.
  • Dall S. R. X., Giraldeau L. A., Olsson O., Mcnamara J. M., Stephens D. W., 2005. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 187-193.
  • Danchin E., Giraldeau L. A., Valone T. J., Wagner R. H., 2004. Public Information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305, 487-491.
  • Dehn M. M., 1990. Vigilance for predators: detection and dilution effects. Behav. Ecol. Sociol. 26, 337-342.
  • Fletcher R. J., Miller C. W., 2006. On the evolution of hidden leks and the implications for reproductive and habitat selection behaviours. Animal Behav. 71, 1247-1251.
  • Forsman J. T., Mönkkönen M., 2001. Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Animal Behav. 62, 1067-1073.
  • Forsman J. T., Mönkkönen M., Inkeröinen J., Reunanen P., 1998. Aggregate dispersion of birds after encountring a predator: experimental evidence. J. Avian Biol. 29, 22-48.
  • Forsman J. T., Seppänen J. T., Mönkkönen M., 2002. Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. Proc. Royal Soc. B 269, 1619-1623.
  • Forsman J. T., Thomson R. L., Seppänen J. T., 2007. Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. Behav. Ecol. 18, 888-894.
  • Forsman J. T., Hjernquist M. B., Taipale J., Gustafsson L., 2008. Competitor density cues for habitat quality facilitating habitat selection and investment decisions. Behav. Ecol. 19, 539-545.
  • Forsman J. T., Hjernquist M. B., Gustafsson L., 2009. Experimental evidence for the use of density based interspecific social information in forest birds. Ecography 32, 539-545.
  • Foster W. A., Treherne J. E., 1981. Evidence for the dilution effect and the selfsh herd from fsh predation on a marine insect. Nature 293, 466-467.
  • Fretwell S. D., 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Fretwell S. D., Lucas H. L., 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distributions of birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19, 16-36.
  • Fuller R., 2012. Birds and habitat: Relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Goodale E., Magrath R. D., Nieh J. C., Ruxton G. D., 2010. Interspecifc information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 354-361.
  • Hamilton W. D., 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theoret. Biol. 31, 295-311.
  • Herremans M., 1993. Clustering of territories in the Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix. Bird Study 40, 12-23.
  • Hoi H., Hoi-Leitner M., 1997. An alternative route to coloniality in bearded tut: females pursue extra-pair fertilizations. Behav. Ecol. 8, 113-119.
  • Krebs J. R., Davies N. B., 2001. Wprowadzenie do ekologii behawioralnej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  • Lima S. L., 1995. Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect. Animal Behav. 49, 11-20.
  • Mariette M. M., Griffith S. C., 2012. Conspecifc attraction and nest site selection in a nomadic species, the zebra finch. Oikos 121, 823-834.
  • Maszczyk P., 2008. Koncepcja rozmieszczenia idealnie swobodnego: czy tylko zasoby? Wiadomości Ekologiczne 54, 113-141.
  • Møller A. P., Danchin E., 2008. Behavioural ecology and conserwation. [W:] Behavioural Ecology. Danchin E., Giraldeau L. A., Cézilly F. (red.). Oxford: Academic Press, Oxford, 647-667.
  • Mönkkönen M., Forsman J. T., 2002. Heterospecifc attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithol. Sci. 1, 41-51.
  • Mönkkönen M., Helle P., Soppela K., 1990. Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communities? Oecologia 85, 218-225.
  • Mönkkönen M., Helle P., Niemi G. J., Montgomery K., 1997. Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities. Canad. J. Zool. 75, 2077-2083.
  • Mönkkönen M., Härdling R., Forsman J. T., Tuomi J., 1999. Evolution of heterospecifc attraction: using other species as cues in habitat selection. Evol. Ecol. 13, 91-104.
  • Morand-Ferron J., Doligez B., Dall S. R. X., Reader S. M., 2010. Social information use. [W:] Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Breed M. D., Moore J. (red.). Oxford: Academic Press, Oxford, 242-250.
  • Neill S. R. S. J., Cullen J. M., 1974. Experiments on whether schooling of prey affects hunting behaviour of cephalopods and fish predators. J. Zool. 172, 549-569.
  • Nocera J. J., Forbes G. J., Giraldeu L. A., 2009. Aggregations from using inadvertent social information: a form of ideal habitat selection. Ecography 32, 143-152.
  • Nolen M. T., Lucas J. R., 2009. Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Animal Behav. 77, 1137-1146.
  • Parejo D., Danchin E., Avilés J. M., 2005. The heterospecifc habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behav. Ecol. 16, 96-105.
  • Perry E. F., Andersen D. E., 2003. Advantages of clustered nesting for Least Flycatchers in north-central Minnesota. Condor 105, 756-770.
  • Perry E. F., Manolis J. C., Andersen D. E., 2008. Reduced predation at interior nests in clustered all-purpose territories of Least Flycatchers (Empidonax minimus). Auk 125, 643-650.
  • Pulliam H. R., 1973. On the advantages of flocking. J. Theoret. Biol. 38, 419-422.
  • Roth K. L., Islam K., 2007. Do Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica cerulea) exhibit clustered territoriality? Am. Midland Natural. 157, 345-355.
  • Seppänen J. T., Forsman J. T., Mönkkönen M., Thomson R. L., 2007. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifcs. Ecology 88, 1622-1633.
  • Sorato E., Gullett P. R., Griffith S. C., Russell A. F., 2012. Effects of predation risk on foraging behaviour and group size: adaptations in a social cooperative species. Animal Behav. 84, 823-834.
  • Sridhar H., Beauchamp G., Shanker K., 2009. Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging focks? A large-scale synthesis. Animal Behav. 78, 337-347.
  • Stamps J. A., 1987. Conspecifics as cues to territory quality: a preference of juvenile lizards (Anolis aeneus) for previously used territories. Am. Natural. 129, 629-642.
  • Stamps J. A., 1988. Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am. Natural. 131, 329-347.
  • Stamps J. A., 1991. The effect of conspecifics on habitat selection in territorial species. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28, 29-36.
  • Szymkowiak J., 2013. Facing uncertainty: how small songbirds asquire and use social information in habitat selection precess? Springer Sci. Rev. 1, 115-131.
  • Tarof S. A., Ratcliffe L. M., 2004. Habitat characteristics and nest predation do not explain clustered breeding in Least Flycatchers (Empidonax minimus). Auk 121, 877-893.
  • Tarof S. A., Ratcliffe L. M., Kasumovic M. M., Boag P. T., 2005. Are least fycatcher (Empidonax minimus) clusters hidden leks? Behav. Ecol. 16, 207-217.
  • Thomson R. L., Forsman J. T., Mönkkönen M., 2003. Positive interactions between migrant and resident birds: testing the heterospecific attraction hypothesis. Oecologia 134, 431-438.
  • Timonen S., Mönkkönen M., Orell M., 1994. Does competition with residents affect the distribution of migrant territories? Ornis Fennica 71, 55-60.
  • Wagner R. H., 1997. Hidden leks: sexual selection and the clustering of avian territories. Ornithol. Monogr. 49, 123-145.
  • Ward P., Zahavi A., 1983. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as 'information-centres' for food-finding. Ibis 115, 517-534.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.bwnjournal-article-ksv63p45kz
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.