Patterns of Food Preferences in Mourning Doves

Hayslette, Steven E.; Mirarchi, Ralph E.

doi:10.2307/3803031

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our work quantifies this relationship and puts form to that relationship. Intuitively, our finding confirms previous observations of many managers attempting to provide dove harvest opportunities (Madson 1978, Baskett 1993, Tomlinson et al 1994, Millspaugh et al 2009), although Hayslette and Mirarchi (2001) and Poling and Hayslette (2006) found captive doves to selectively feed on millet. The wildlife management principles behind managed sunflower fields, although simple, require considerable effort and attention to detail.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Factors affecting mourning dove harvest in Missouri

Bonnot

Schulz

Millspaugh

2011

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) management efforts have focused on reducing uncertainties in harvest management at national and regional scales, but there remains considerable interest in issues related to local, intensively managed areas. Our objective was to evaluate effects of different local management strategies, including field management and regulations, and weather, on the number of hunts and the number of doves harvested annually. We collected harvest information from dove hunters, and area management characteristics from wildlife managers on 9 public hunting areas in Missouri, USA from 2005 to 2009. Number of hunts on an area was best explained by number of hectares of crop on the area; however, acreage above 50 ha offered limited increases in the number of hunts on a site. The most supported model for the number of doves harvested contained a positive effect of acreage of sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) in good or excellent condition. This model was followed by a closely competing model reflecting increases in the number of doves harvested when an area used daily lottery and shot‐type restrictions; however, complete overlap between these 2 regulations prevented separation of their individual effects. To manipulate hunting opportunities and harvest levels in Missouri, managers can be most effective by controlling hectares and condition of managed croplands, especially sunflowers. However, further work is needed to assess the relative impacts of lottery regulations and nontoxic‐shot restrictions on dove harvest. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Factors affecting mourning dove harvest in Missouri

Bonnot

Schulz

Millspaugh

2011

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changes in nutrient requirements of these species during reproduction might alter food preferences, and hence, dietary overlap and competition. However, previous studies noted that mourning dove food preferences remain relatively constant across seasons (Davison and Sullivan 1963) and that these preferences do not seem to favor high protein or calcium seeds during the breeding season (Hayslette and Mirarchi 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Mourning doves and collared-doves are highly granivorous; agricultural grains are important foods for both species (Lewis 1993, Hayslette and Mirarchi 2001, Romagosa 2002. This similarity in foraging ecology may lead to exploitation and, possibly, interference foraging competition between mourning doves and collared-doves where important foods are limited in abundance or distribution (e.g., suburban areas).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietary Overlap and Foraging Competition Between Mourning Doves and Eurasian Collared-Doves

Hayslette

2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent Eurasian collared‐dove (Streptopelia decaocto, hereafter collared‐dove) invasion of North America has raised concerns regarding its effects on native species, particularly mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). Our goal was to assess the potential for, and possible consequences of, foraging competition between mourning doves and collared‐doves. We compared diet selection and measured degree of dietary overlap between the 2 dove species in a captive cafeteria experiment, and we measured aggression and competitive ability of these species in 3 captive competition experiments. We evaluated the effects of body size, temperature, and food distribution on aggression and competitive ability of both species, and we measured intraspecific aggression levels and competitive ability within each species. We found a high degree of dietary overlap between species; food preferences were similar between species, and Pianka's index of foraging‐niche overlap was 0.95. Neither aggression nor competitive ability varied between species, however. Distribution of food in cafeteria experiments did not affect seed‐preference results. Ambient temperature and body size of competitors had little effects on aggression or competitive ability of either species. Distribution of food in the environment affected aggression between species, however; aggression was greater in single (0.50 ± 0.10 interactions/min) than in multiple‐patch (0.12 ± 0.02 interactions/min) trials. Collared‐doves do not appear behaviorally more aggressive or competitively successful than mourning doves. Our results suggest that the potential for negative effects of collared‐doves on mourning dove populations may be less than previously suspected, so control measures for collared doves may be unnecessary. However, competitive dynamics involving larger flocks of collared‐doves and other potentially limiting resources must be considered. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 70(4):998–1004; 2006)

show abstract

“…Four articles were unusual in their study of resource selection. Hayslette and Mirarchi (2001) and Smith and Belthoff (2001) reported results of controlled experiments, whereas all others reported observational studies. Gabler et al (2000) conducted a confirmatory study by predicting use and nonuse of plots based upon plot attributes and then reported the relative frequency of correct predictions.…”

Section: Study Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Thomas

Taylor

2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

326

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review 87 articles published in the Journal of Wildlife Management from 2000 to 2004 to assess the current state of practice in the design and analysis of resource selection studies. Articles were classified into 4 study designs. In design 1, data are collected at the population level because individual animals are not identified. Individual animal selection may be assessed in designs 2 and 3. In design 2, use by each animal is recorded, but availability (or nonuse) is measured only at the population level. Use and availability (or unused) are measured for each animal in design 3. In design 4, resource use is measured multiple times for each animal, and availability (or nonuse) is measured for each use location. Thus, use and availability measures are paired for each use in design 4. The 4 study designs were used about equally in the articles reviewed. The most commonly used statistical analyses were logistic regression (40%) and compositional analysis (25%). We illustrate 4 problem areas in resource selection analyses: pooling of relocation data across animals with differing numbers of relocations, analyzing paired data as though they were independent, tests that do not control experiment wise error rates, and modeling observations as if they were independent when temporal or spatial correlations occurs in the data. Statistical models that allow for variation in individual animal selection rather than pooling are recommended to improve error estimation in population‐level selection. Some researchers did not select appropriate statistical analyses for paired data, or their analyses were not well described. Researchers using one‐resource‐at‐a‐time procedures often did not control the experiment wise error rate, so simultaneous inference procedures and multivariate assessments of selection are suggested. The time interval between animal relocations was often relatively short, but existing analyses for temporally or spatially correlated data were not used. For studies that used logistic regression, we identified the data type employed: single sample, case control (used‐unused), use‐availability, or paired use‐availability. It was not always clear whether studies intended to compare use to nonuse or use to availability. Despite the popularity of compositional analysis, we do not recommend it for multiple relocation data when use of one or more resources is low. We illustrate that resource selection models are part of a broader collection of statistical models called weighted distributions and recommend some promising areas for future development.

show abstract

Patterns of Food Preferences in Mourning Doves

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Factors affecting mourning dove harvest in Missouri

Factors affecting mourning dove harvest in Missouri

Dietary Overlap and Foraging Competition Between Mourning Doves and Eurasian Collared-Doves

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About