Spacing Patterns in Mobile Animals

Unravelling feeding territoriality in the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, in Cananéia, Brazil

“…According to Noble (1939), the defense of any area characterises it as a territory; further, it is in agreement with the definition that a territory is a fixed space from which an individual or group of mutually tolerant individuals excludes competitors from a specific resource or resources (Maher and Lott, 1995). To demonstrate the existence of a territory in a given species, three criteria must be simultaneously met (Brown and Orians, 1970): it must be (i) exclusive, (ii) fixed and (iii) actively or passively defended against intruders. These three factors have been found in the territorial behaviour of various species of vertebrates, and observed for different groups of birds (Maher and Lott, 2000).…”

“…Our observations led us to define the territorial individuals as such, given that their behaviour met the three simultaneous conditions proposed by Brown and Orians (1970) as being essential when attempting to show territoriality. The first states that a territory must show a slow change over time, or be fixed; which was clearly demonstrated for the Little Blue Herons studied here.…”

“…Since we are dealing with a feeding territory, what is being defended here is the food resource and access to it. According to Brown and Orians (1970), it is generally assumed that food is the resource defended when territories are established away from the breeding area. Davies and Houston (1984) point out that one of three factors favouring territoriality is resource quality and distribution.…”

Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why

“…Ready access to small mammals was also a benefit during all times of the year, although transients were equally capable of capturing small mammals. Thus, the evolution of defense of an area that increases fitness (Davies 1978) by encompassing food, mates, and den sites would be advantageous in coyote society (Brown and Orians 1970;Bekoff and Wells 1986). Territoriality allowed resident animals greater access to food, mates, and den sites, while lone transients and dispersing individuals had less opportunity for breeding and reduced access to ungulate carcasses.…”

“…Territoriality allows animals to exclude potential competitors from access to mates, food, space, and cover. Brown and Orians (1970) proposed that territoriality is implied if there is little overlap between home ranges, scent-marking behavior is performed, and agonistic interactions occur. Several studies have demonstrated direct and indirect mechanisms that many carnivore species use to maintain their territory boundaries, including scent-marking (Peters and Mech 1975;Camenzind 1978;Rothman and Mech 1979;Barrette and Messier 1980;Bowen and Cowan 1980;Wells and Bekoff 1981;Bailey 1993;Caro 1994;, howling (Harrington and Mech 1978a, 1978bGese and Ruff 1998), and confronting intruders (Camenzind 1978;Bekoff and Wells 1986;Mech 1993Mech , 1994.…”