Post‐fledging family space use in blue and great tit: similarities and species‐specific behaviours
Post‐fledging family space use in blue and great tit: similarities and species‐specific behaviours
复制标题
蓝山雀和大山雀羽翼未丰后的家庭空间利用：相似性和物种特异性行为
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Matthysen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Overveld;Michalis Vardakis;Lisa K. Arvidsson;Kristine Stolk;F. Adriaensen;E. Matthysen
在鸟类中，父母护送依赖的年轻人到繁殖区以外的觅食区是一种常见的现象，但记录很少。使用无线电跟踪，我们提供了12个蓝山雀Cyanistes caeruleus家庭的羽翼丰满后的运动的详细描述，并将这些观察结果与在同一研究区域收集的密切相关的大山雀Parus major的更大数据集进行比较。两种山雀在林地外活动的家庭比例相似（± 50%），但与大山雀（平均值± SE：666 m ± 42，范围：245-1898，n = 64）相比，蓝山雀（平均值± SE：1100 m ± 265，范围：643-2374，n = 6）这些活动的空间范围往往更大。蓝山雀家庭觅食显着更多的橡树栖息地内的林地，独立的游览行为，而大山雀进行游览转移到更多变的栖息地以外的林地他们的范围使用。观察到的蓝山雀的波动出现了家族范围的多日或永久性变化，而不是大山雀中最常见的每日波动。虽然这两个物种的家庭运动可能在很大程度上是由共同的潜在因素驱动的，但我们的研究结果也指出了空间行为的物种特异性差异，这可能与觅食专业化和羽翼未丰后的领土保真度有关。
In birds, parental escorting of dependent young to feeding areas outside the breeding territory is a commonly observed, yet poorly documented phenomenon. Using radio‐tracking, we provide a detailed description of the post‐fledging movements of 12 blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus families and compare these observations with a much larger dataset of the closely related great tit Parus major collected over several years in the same study area. The proportion of families making excursions outside woodlots was similar in both species (± 50%), but the spatial extent of these movements tended to be larger in blue tits (mean ± SE: 1100 m ± 265, range: 643–2374, n = 6) as compared to great tits (mean ± SE: 666 m ± 42, range: 245–1898, n = 64). Blue tit families foraged significantly more in oak habitat within woodlots, independently of excursion behaviour, whereas great tits undertaking excursions shifted their range use towards more variable habitat outside woodlots. The observed excursions of blue tits appeared multiple‐day or permanent shifts of the family range, and not daily excursions as most frequently observed in great tits. Although family movements in both species may be largely driven by common underlying factors, our results also points toward species‐specific difference in spatial behaviour which may be linked with foraging specializations and post‐fledging territory fidelity.