Bill morphology and biometrics of three sibling woodpecker species from sympatric populations

Multi-character approach reveals a new mangrove population of the Yellow Warbler complex, Setophaga petechia, on Cozumel Island, Mexico

“…bryanti , presents a greater morphological variation than the island ones suggesting a larger ecological niche [ 6 ]; although, phenotypic plasticity or selection process are also possible hypotheses [ 6 ] more studies are needed to refine theses hypotheses. Although both island populations occupy areas in close geographical proximity, their habitat preference has probably decreased the competition for resources and permitted a rapid increase in morphological divergence between them, particularly for wing and tail length that are important in foraging behavior [references in 11 ].…”

“…To understand the origin of these variations, different kinds of information can be used [ 6 ]. For example: morphology, particularly bill characteristics [ 8 , 10 , 11 ], acoustic [ 12 , 13 ], genetic [ 14 , 15 ], phenotypic [ 16 , 17 ], and even more accurately the multi-character approaches [e.g., 5 , 6 , 9 ]. One mechanism for diversification that can lead to population differentiation and ultimately to speciation, is hybridization [references in 18 ].…”

Gps Telemetry and Home Range of the White-Backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos: Results of the First Experience

“…There are at least two plausible explanations for the inter-sex difference in the home range size. Some authors suggest that it may be related to the bill size dimorphism (Aulén & Lundberg 1991, Stenberg & Hogstad 2004, Hogstad & Stenberg 2005, Myczko et al 2020, because the longer and heavier bill of males would allow them feeding a wider range of resources (Aulén & Lundberg 1991, Stenberg & Hogstad 2004, and thus, finding food in larger areas than females. However, this explanation assumes that food resources are irregularly distributed across the landscape, a fact that remains to be tested in the study area.…”

A review of co-occurrence and hybridization as neglected factors in studies of Syrian WoodpeckerDendrocopos syriacusand Great Spotted WoodpeckerDendrocopos major

“…Playback stimulation was only used in twenty-six of these (3 from Romania (Dorrestejin et al 2013;Damoc et al 2014;Domokos & Cristea 2014), one from Iran (Mohamadian, Shafaeipour & Fathinia 2019) and the rest from Poland). Publications in which field research was not conducted included books and articles (Gorman 1996(Gorman , 1999(Gorman , 2015, studies on museum specimens (Myczko et al 2020;Pecsics et al 2023), dead specimens (Hanak, Rumler & Vermouzek 2003), a mathematical model (Pavlik 1994), summaries based on other publications (Marisova 1965;Pasinelli 2006), nest cards (Hebda & Szewczyk 2005;Hebda 2009) and ringing data (Ciach & Fröhlich 2013). In addition, there was one molecular study on phylogeographic patterns of GW (Zink, Drovetski & Rohwer 2003), and two molecular studies on both species and their hybrids (Michalczuk et al 2014;Gurgul et al 2019).…”

“…Thirteen studies compared the plumages of both species: the main topic in three of these was plumage differences and identification (Horvath 1961;Gorman 1996Gorman , 1999, while the other ten only mentioned differences and hybrid plumage (Matousek 1954;Marisova 1965;Dudzik & Polakowski 2011). Two studies dealt with the bill and cranial morphometry of these two species together with those of other European woodpeckers (Myczko et al 2020;Pecsics et al 2023). Vocalisation differences between GW and SW were mentioned in seven publications (Munteanu 1968;Krotoski, Karnas & Przyszlak 1986;Dudzik & Polakowski 2011).…”