Common Patterns in Home Range-Body Size Relationships of Birds and Mammals
Common Patterns in Home Range-Body Size Relationships of Birds and Mammals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1086/283807
复制
发表时间：
1981-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. H. Jenkins
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. H. Jenkins
Baker和Mewaldt（1979）最近提供了关于美国加州五种同域食谷鸟类的家域的数据，海岸灌木栖息地。他们发现，这个群体的家域大小可以描述为体重的幂函数，指数为1.31。这一结果与Schoener（1968）早期对具有不同食性和栖息地的大量鸟类物种的分析以及McNab（1963）对有限哺乳动物样本的分析进行了比较。舍纳的幂函数的指数为1.16;麦克纳布的幂函数的指数为0.63。舍纳将他的鸟类样本按营养级进行细分，并分析了比麦克纳布所考虑的略大的哺乳动物食肉动物的数据，得出结论，食物类型是一个更好的预测家域大小-体重关系比喂养动物的分类从属关系，食肉动物比草食动物和杂食动物具有更大的指数。Baker和Mewaldt将他们对食谷鸟类的新结果解释为支持“鸟类和哺乳动物在家域和身体大小之间的关系上存在根本差异”的替代假设（Baker and Mewaldt 1979，p.51），并推测，这可能与飞行的能量消耗随着身体大小的增加而增加的速度比基础代谢率甚至活跃代谢率更快有关。率最近一项对大量哺乳动物数据的分析（Harestad and邦内尔，1979）对鸟类在活动范围大小-体重关系上与哺乳动物有本质区别的观点提出了质疑。Harestad和邦内尔发现，哺乳动物家域大小与体重之间的幂函数与Schoener（1968）报告的鸟类的幂函数没有区别。这些幂函数以及McNab（1963）、Baker和Mewaldt（1979）导出的幂函数的比较见表1。最重要的是，哺乳类食肉动物的指数为1.36，与Schoener推导的食肉鸟类的1.39和Baker和Mewaldt推导的食谷鸟类的1.31非常相似。对于杂食性和草食性鸟类和哺乳动物，指数都较小。(1)为什么麦克纳布、哈雷斯塔德和邦内尔对哺乳动物的研究结果如此不同？(2)为什么Baker和Mewaldt的食谷鸟类表现出与食肉鸟类和哺乳动物相同的模式，而不是杂食动物或草食动物？McNab的低指数可能主要是由于他的样本中食肉动物的缺乏（Schoener 1968）。Harestad和邦内尔的样本包括20种食肉动物（36%），而McNab的样本只包括4种（15%）。由于食草动物和杂食动物的指数低于食肉动物，因此McNab的总样本指数低于Harestad和邦内尔的指数也就不足为奇了。由于营养状况对家域大小的影响很大，
Baker and Mewaldt (1979) recently presented data on home ranges of five sympatric species of granivorous birds in a California, U.S.A., coastal scrub habitat. They found that home range size in this group could be described as a power function of body mass with an exponent of 1.31. This result was compared with an earlier analysis by Schoener (1968) of a larger set of bird species of diverse feeding habits and habitats, and an analysis by McNab (1963) of a limited sample of mammals. Schoener's power function relating home range size to body mass for all species in his sample had an exponent of 1.16; McNab's power function for all species in his sample had an exponent of 0.63. Schoener subdivided his bird sample by trophic level and analyzed data for a slightly larger set of mammalian carnivores than had been considered by McNab, and concluded that food type was a better predictor of home range size-body mass relationships than taxonomic affiliation of the feeding animals, with carnivores having larger exponents than herbivores and omnivores. Baker and Mewaldt interpreted their new results for granivorous birds as supporting the alternative hypothesis of "a fundamental difference between birds and mammals in the relationship between home range and body size" (Baker and Mewaldt 1979, p. 51), and speculated that this might be related to the fact that energy costs of flight increase at a faster rate with body size than basal metabolic rate or even active metabolic rate. A recent analysis of a larger set of mammalian data (Harestad and Bunnell 1979) casts doubt on the idea that birds are inherently different from mammals in home range size-body mass relationships. Harestad and Bunnell found that power functions relating home range size to body mass for mammals do not differ from those for birds as reported by Schoener (1968). Comparisons of these power functions, as well as those derived by McNab (1963) and Baker and Mewaldt (1979), are presented in table 1. Most significantly, the exponent for mammalian carnivores is 1.36, very similar to the 1.39 for carnivorous birds derived by Schoener and the 1.31 for granivorous birds derived by Baker and Mewaldt. For both omnivorous and herbivorous birds and mammals, exponents are less. Two questions remain to be considered. (1) Why are McNab's and Harestad and Bunnell's results for mammals so different? (2) Why do Baker and Mewaldt's granivorous birds exhibit the same pattern as carnivorous birds and mammals, rather than that of omnivores or herbivores? McNab's low exponent probably results largely from the paucity of carnivores in his sample (Schoener 1968). Harestad and Bunnell's sample includes 20 carnivores (36%), whereas McNab's only includes four (15%). Since herbivores and omnivores have lower exponents than carnivores, it is not surprising that the exponent of McNab's total sample is less than that of Harestad and Bunnell's. Because of the great influence of trophic status on home range size, it seems more