On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds

Fretwell, Stephen D.; Calver, James Stevan

doi:10.1007/bf01601953

Cited by 3,708 publications

(2,250 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,094

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hinds inhabiting Kilmory Glen were presumably further from carrying capacity after culling ceased compared to coastal regions, and it is possible that the density interaction we observed was due to spatial differences in proximity of the local population to carrying capacity. Our results suggest that the relationship between fitness and resource selection erodes as density increases (figure 2), as predicted by ideal-free theory (Fretwell & Lucas 1970). We did not observe interactions consistent with the ideal despotic distribution (Fretwell & Lucas 1970;Morris 2003), e.g.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Two hinds with centroids of movements contained within Agrostis/Festuca grassland near Shamhnan Insir (primarily G1 grassland but at intermediate density) also had exceptionally high LRS. Our detection of spatial variation in fitness among hinds suggests a departure from Fretwell & Lucas's (1970) idealfree distribution (IFD) model of habitat selection, although density-dependence in resource selection was clearly evident. In the IFD model, individuals are free to occupy the habitat most suitable to them, whereby suitability Table 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…This observation underscores a fundamental concept in animal ecology: patterns in the spatial distribution of abundance result from individual attempts to maximize fitness through selective use of habitat resources. Roughgarden understood the niche to be a hypervolume described, in part, by a range of resources modified by associated abiotic and biotic covariates (Hutchinson 1965); however, most research into the link between fitness and resource selection has focused on an individual's use of a single resource variable, such as a type of nest site or habitat (Fretwell & Lucas 1970, reviews in Rosenzweig 1981, 1991Morris 2003). Few studies have demonstrated links between fitness and resource selection when individuals use more than one habitat resource (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection

McLoughlin

Boyce

Coulson³

et al. 2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

145

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals are predicted to maximize lifetime reproductive success (LRS) through selective use of resources; however, a wide range of ecological and social processes may prevent individuals from always using the highest-quality resources available. Resource selection functions (RSFs) estimate the relative amount of time an individual spends using a resource as a function of the proportional availability of that resource. We quantified the association between LRS and coefficients of individual-based RSFs describing lifetime resource selection for 267 female red deer (Cervus elaphus) of the Isle of Rum, Scotland, from 1970 to 2001. LRS was significantly related to first-and second-order effects of selection for Agrostis/Festuca grassland and proximity to the sea coast (quality of forage within Agrostis/Festuca grassland was highest nearest the coast (ratio of short : long grassland)). The benefits of selecting for quality in Agrostis/Festuca grassland, however, traded-off with increases in LRS gained by avoiding conspecific density. LRS was inversely associated with local density, which was highest along the coast, and reproductive benefits of selecting Agrostis/Festuca grassland diminished with increasing density. We discuss the relevance of these results to our understanding of the spatial distribution of red deer abundance, and potential applications of our approach to evolutionary and applied ecology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection

McLoughlin

Boyce

Coulson³

et al. 2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

145

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To maximize fitness, organisms must assess and select suitable habitat (Fretwell & Lucas 1970). Some important early research (Mayr 1926;Lack & Venables 1939) observed correlations between vegetation structure and density or productivity of animals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To maximize fitness, organisms must assess and select suitable habitat. Early research studying birds suggested that organisms consider primarily vegetation structural cues in their habitat choices. We show that experimental exposure to singing in the post-breeding period provides a social cue that is used for habitat selection the following year by a migrant songbird, the black-throated blue warbler (Dendroica caerulescens). Our experimental social cues coerced individuals to adopt territories in areas of very poor habitat quality where individuals typically do not occur. This indicates that social information can override typical associations with vegetation structure. We demonstrate that a strong settlement response was elicited because post-breeding song at a site is highly correlated with reproductive success. These results constitute a previously undocumented, but highly parsimonious mechanism for the inadvertent transfer of reproductive (public) information from successful breeders to dispersers. We hypothesize that post-breeding song is a pervasive and reliable cue for species that communicate vocally, inhabit temporally autocorrelated environments, produce young asynchronously and/or abandon territories after reproductive failure.

show abstract

“…The proportion of males of type h i and h r are given by m i and m r , respectively, and the total number of males is given by N m . We assume that female patch-use decisions are idealfree, 'ideal' meaning they have perfect knowledge of the quality (resource value and harassment level) in each patch and 'free' meaning they can freely move between patches [19]. All males in the population are confined to patch 1 and variation between patches is strictly due to the movement of females.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of sexual selection and female use of refuge in a coercive mating system

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many non-monogamous systems, males invest less in progeny than do females. This leaves males with higher potential rates of reproduction, and a likelihood of sexual conflict, including, in some systems, coercive matings. If coercive matings are costly, the best female strategy may be to avoid male interaction. We present a model that demonstrates female movement in response to male harassment as a mechanism to lower the costs associated with male coercion, and the effect that female movement has on selection in males for male harassment. We found that, when females can move from a habitat patch to a refuge to which males do not have access, there may be a selection for either high, or low harassment male phenotype, or both, depending on the relationship between the harassment level of male types in the population and a threshold level of male harassment. This threshold harassment level depends on the relative number of males and females in the population, and the relative resource values of the habitat; the threshold increases as the sex ratio favours females, and decreases with the value of the refuge patch or total population. Our model predicts that selection will favour the harassment level that lies closest to this threshold level of harassment, and differing harassment levels will coexist within the population only if they lie on the opposite sides of the threshold harassment. Our model is consistent with empirical results suggesting that an intermediate harassment level provides maximum reproductive fitness to males when females are mobile.

show abstract

On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds

Cited by 3,708 publications

References 7 publications

Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection

Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection

Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird

A model of sexual selection and female use of refuge in a coercive mating system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About