DOCSLIB.ORG

Not a Home Range! Varieties of Territory There Are Many

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Not a Home Range! Varieties of Territory There Are Many Definitions of Territoriality Not a Home Range! Varieties of Territory There are many. Huntingford and Turner’s defns are specifically One end of the spectrum---Odum: geared toward distinguishing territory from h.r. A bit ad hoc: •“An actively defended home range” 1. Based on Resource that the owner gets •“At the risk of offending semantic purists we are Home range is basically just the area in which access to: including under the heading of territoriality any active mechanism that spaces individuals or groups apart from an individual tends to restrict itself food one another, which means that we can talk about territoriality in plants and microorganisms as well as in Example of coatis: mates shelter animals.” Exclusive home ranges but not territories. •Huntingford and Turner---A Behaviorally defined notion. Territorial behavior has 4 components: 1. Site attachment also nest sites 2. Exclusive use of the area 3. Agonistic behavior 4. Attack changes to retreat at the territory 2. Length of Time defended. boundary Ranges from hours to year-round Typically refers to an area in space rather than a 3. Defended by whom and how many? mobile resource (for example red deer stag and Single individuals versus mating pairs, etc. his harem of does) Yarrow’s Spiny Lizards on Mt. Graham Phyletic Perspective on Territories Population-level consequences Studying the phyletic a. Biol. Of or pertaining to the development of a A fatal blow for the Ideal Free Distribution species or other taxonomic group. effects of test- concept. osterone implants Winn 1954. Territoriality in Darters (fish) in male lizards. Thus, Natl Seln may act to increase (Marler and proportion of territorial animals in a Moore) population. A continuum of territorial behavior across closely related species from “more primitive” to more recent/more specialized: •Percina caprodes---lake dweller, non- Costs and Benefits of Territoriality territorial Benefits: •Hadropterus maculatus---drive other males •Food: lasts longer, lower depletion rates, less away from females variability in supply •Mates •Etheostoma (2 spp.) defend females and •Offpspring rearing (female salmon) remain near landmarks •Lowered predation (due to nest dispersion) •E. blennoides---high aggression and fixed Costs: territories. •Acquisition •Displays and patrolling •Possibility of injury (though not very common!) •“Single-Use” Territory •TTP (Displays and Patrolling really are costly!) How Large a Territory? African Bee-eaters: Conditional Territoriality Another simple graphical framework: Live in mud- Some animals are bank colonies, territorial at times and but forage in downright gregarious at separate other times. foraging terri- tories that Bellbirds in New they defend Zealand. against intru- ders Fitness Currency Extra 25 kJ/day from switching to terr. behav. under low food density Communal feeding area close to home: XY 100 mg insect/hour average Territory Size Rypstra (1989) studying a social spider: Defended, distant territories •Low Food Density---solitary and highly territorial 250 mg insect/hour average! The optimum occurs where the slopes of the •Hi FD---social. aggregations spin webs and individuals are free to go where they will. Fewer cost and the benefit curves are equal (That is insects escape from the group webs. Yet, some birds abandoned their territory to feed where the marginal benefits of a larger territory start to •The bee-eater mystery close to home. Why?!?! decrease faster than the costs are increasing. ) •One would expect that individuals that voluntarily Curve shapes will depend on environmental quality and choose to be non-territorial will do so because there is Once again (as in the starling, central place population size relative to limiting factors not an energetic advantage to holding the territory. foraging example---bringing food back to chicks Explanations for Territory The Resource-holding Power The Payoff Asymmetry Maintenance Asymmetry Hypothesis Hypothesis Two interesting observations: Territory owners are bigger and stronger by 1. Most territory owners don’t forfeit their nature. There are certain costs to establishing a new territories in conflicts with intruders territory, initially 2. Things don’t often escalate to full-blown This generates predictions: fighting but then the payoffs increase over time because you have an “agreement” with your familiar Why could this be? We’ll look at three neighbors explanations. Two testable predictions: 1. If you remove an individual, and let somebody take 1. The “Arbitrary Rule” ESS over his territory, he is less likely to regain his territory if hypothesis: Beewolf wasps (O’Neill 1983) you keep him captive longer Pseudoscorpions (Zeh et al. 1997) 2. The duration of contest to re- Damselflies, endurance flying, and fat gain the territory should increase reserves (Marden and Waage 1990) with increasing time of being away from its original territory Speckled wood butterfly and sunspot Krebs 1982: found these trends territories. (Davies 1978) But note red-winged blackbirds (Shutler and BUT---not a properly controlled Wetherhead 1991) experiment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Microcebus Murinus)
    Sex-specific differences in dispersal propensities and their consequences for grey mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus) D i s s e r t a t i o n zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Mathematisch‐Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten der Georg‐August‐Universität zu Göttingen vorgelegt von Susanne Schliehe‐Diecks aus Glandorf Göttingen 2012 Referent: Prof. Dr. Peter M. Kappeler Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Eckhard W. Heymann Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 16.07.2012 Grey mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus), nocturnal, solitary active primates CONTENTS CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: DISPERSAL MOVEMENTS Walk the line – Dispersal movements of gray mouse lemurs………..............................11 with Manfred Eberle and Peter M. Kappeler Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology (2012): in press CHAPTER 2: PROXIMATE MECHANISMS OF NATAL DISPERSAL Ready to go? On the relationship between natal dispersal and body mass in gray mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus)...............................................................37 with Manfred Eberle and Peter M. Kappeler Behavioral Ecology: submitted CHAPTER 3: SEX‐SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURAL DIFFERENCES On the application of mixed hidden Markov models to multiple behavioural time series....................................................................................................................57 with Peter M. Kappeler and Roland Langrock Interface Focus (2012) 2: 180‐189 CHAPTER 4: CONSEQUENCES OF NATAL DISPERSAL The
    [Show full text]
  • When Should a Territory Resident Attack?
    ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2001, 62, 749–759 doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1799, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on When should a territory resident attack? PAUL V. SWITZER*, JUDY A. STAMPS† & MARC MANGEL‡ *Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Illinois University †Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis ‡Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz (Received 10 August 2000; initial acceptance 2 October 2000; final acceptance 15 March 2001; MS. number: A8855) Models of territorial defence tend to omit two characteristics of many territorial systems: repeated intrusions by the same individual and the learning processes of residents and intruders. Here we present state-dependent, dynamic models of feeding territories, designed to investigate temporal patterns of resident aggression towards intruders that are capable of spatial learning. We compare two types of models: (1) a nomadic intruder model, in which intruders never visit the same territory twice, and (2) a single, repeat intruder model, in which an intruder may repeatedly intrude into a given territory but is less likely to do so after being attacked. These two models produce qualitatively and quantitatively different patterns of aggression by residents. For instance, residents with intruders that may repeatedly intrude have high initial attack rates, regardless of initial probability of intrusion, but their attack rates decline over time. In contrast, residents in the nomadic intruder model do not attack intruders if intrusion rates are moderately high, and their attack rates are constant and high for most of the period of territory tenure. In addition, residents of both nomadic and repeat intruder scenarios stopped attacking intruders for a short period before voluntarily abandoning their feeding territories.
    [Show full text]
  • White-Tailed Deer Scientific Name: Odocoileus Virginianus
    ODNR Division of Wildlife Life History Notes White-tailed Deer Scientific Name: Odocoileus virginianus Publication 101 (R503) Introduction with heavy, long guard hairs and a thick under- The white-tailed deer, commonly referred to coat that provides excellent insulation. White as the whitetail, is perhaps Ohio’s best-known patches are found around the eyes, on the wildlife species. It is seen in the state’s wildlife throat, belly, tail (underside), and insides of the areas, parks, and nature preserves as well as in legs. When in flight, the large white tail or flag, the backyards of rural and suburban residents. flipped up in the air can be the easiest way to The state’s only big game animal, it has pro- spot the deer. vided table fare for generations of the state’s Whitetails, especially in Ohio, are also well inhabitants from Native Americans to thou- known for their antlers. The whitetail buck grows sands of sportsmen and women today. its first set of antlers when it is a year old. Each However, the white-tailed deer hasn’t always year, a buck’s antlers begin growing in the been as abundant in the state as it is today. early spring. The developing antler is covered As a matter of fact, there was a period of time with a thick velvety skin rich with blood vessels (1904 to 1923) when the deer was absent in the and nerves. Decreasing day length in the late state. As Ohio was settled, habitat was eliminat- summer and early fall triggers many physical ed and hunting was unregulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series 570:233
    Vol. 570: 233–246, 2017 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published April 27 https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12073 Mar Ecol Prog Ser OPEN ACCESS Visitor noise at a nesting colony alters the behavior of a coastal seabird Rachel T. Buxton1,*, Reina Galvan1, Megan F. McKenna2, Cecilia L. White1, Victoria Seher3 1Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1474, USA 2Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525, USA 3Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, San Francisco, California 94123, USA ABSTRACT: Exposure to park visitors can disrupt animal behavior. Management strategies often aim to eliminate direct human disturbance; however, elevated visitor noise levels may remain. Coastal seabird colonies frequently overlap with scenic locations, resulting in high visitor noise and potentially altered behavior, habitat use, and fitness. We examine the impact of visitor noise on Brandt’s cormorants Phalacrocorax penicillatus at Alcatraz Island, an important nesting site and one of California’s most visited attractions. We used paired acoustic and video recorders to investigate the relationship between visitor noise levels and the behavior and relative abundance of cormorants in colonies adjacent to and far from a heavily visited building. Visitors were not visible from the cormorant colonies. At cormorant colonies adjacent to the visited building, distur- bance-related behaviors increased with visitor noise. Conversely, there was no relationship be - tween behavior and visitor noise in colonies far from the visited building. Cormorant disturbance behavior increased and abundance decreased when gulls were present at colonies adjacent to the visited building, whereas there was no relationship between gulls and behavior or abundance at colonies far from the visited building.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Your Woodland for White-Tailed Deer St
    MANAGING YOUR WOODLAND FOR Managing Your Woodland for White-tailed Deer St. Paul, MN 55155-4040 Paul, St. Road 500 Lafayette SectionWildlife of Department of Natural Resources White-tailed deer are Minnesota’s most abundant Behavior and Home Range and popular big game animal with a population of White-tailed deer make seasonal changes in the White-tailed approximately one million. Through the early to mid- use and size of their home range in response to 2000’s, deer populations were at historic high levels and changing weather, food availability and cover needs. In have only recently been reduced through liberal hunting Minnesota’s northern forests an adult doe’s seasonal Deer regulations. They are found throughout Minnesota and home range is between 120-900 acres. Yearling does thrive in many diverse landscapes across the state’s more establish home ranges near their mother, while yearling than 79,000 square miles. Deer are very adaptable and bucks are more likely to establish home ranges some can be found in agricultural areas near river bottoms distance from their mother’s home range. In late and in farm woodlots, in open grass and brushland summer, adult does, fawns, and yearlings gather in landscapes, and in northern forests. An important aspect social groups, staying together through the winter and of maintaining desirable deer populations is employing spring. a hunting season harvest strategy that targets antlerless deer, and by providing the proper habitat, or food, cover, Adult bucks occupy 300-1,300 acre home ranges water, and space. By learning about the basics habitat and expand their home ranges during the fall rutting needs of deer, and through active habitat and hunting season.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Breeding Territory Size and Placement of the Florida Grasshoper Sparrow (Ammodramus Savannarum Floridanus)
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2009 Factors Affecting Breeding Territory Size And Placement Of The Florida Grasshoper Sparrow (ammodramus Savannarum Floridanus) Jill Aldredge University of Central Florida Part of the Biology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Aldredge, Jill, "Factors Affecting Breeding Territory Size And Placement Of The Florida Grasshoper Sparrow (ammodramus Savannarum Floridanus)" (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4042. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4042 FACTORS AFFECTING BREEDING TERRITORY SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (AMMODRAMUS SAVANNARUM FLORIDANUS) by JILL NICOLE ALDREDGE B.S. University of Kansas, 2000 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Biology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2009 ABSTRACT For most taxa, maximizing fitness depends on maintaining access to adequate resources. Territories provide exclusive use of resources for an individual or a family group, thus facilitating successful reproduction. The economic defensibility of a territory depends on the quality, abundance, and distribution of its resources as well as the amount of competition that an individual must endure to maintain exclusive access. The benefits of defense must outweigh the costs for territoriality to be profitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions Updated
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS MOUNTAIN LIONS - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, ADAPTATIONS & HABITS What is the difference between a mountain lion, a cougar and a puma? There are many common names given to these charismatic predators and mountain lion, cougar and puma are all correct for the species. The scientific name for this beautiful cat is Puma concolor (meaning: lion of one color). In South America, where they occur as far south as southern Chile, they are mostly known as puma. What are the characteristics of mountain lions? Mountain lions are North America’s big cat. They are solitary predators, mainly active at twilight and night (crepuscular and nocturnal). They have a tawny brown coat, with short course hair, light undersides, and an extremely long, black-tipped tail, about 2/3 their body length. Mountain lions have a relatively thin neck, small head with rounded ears, and a wide face with a distinctive short white muzzle ringed with darker fur. They have a fairly stocky build, with slightly longer back legs and big paws with sharp, retractable claws. They are the top predators in their ecosystems but are generally timid in their interaction with humans avoiding contact where possible. Mountain lions tend to run away or climb trees to escape danger. They do not roar like other large cats, rather making a variety of sounds more closely resembling domestic cats, but just louder. What are the differences between male and female mountain lions? Mountain lion male and females look the same, however, male’s testicles can be visible at the base of the tail.
    [Show full text]
  • Cougars (Mountain Lions)
    Cougars (Mountain Lions) Sleek and graceful, cougars (Puma concolor, Fig. 1) are solitary and secretive animals rarely seen in the wild. Also known as mountain lions or pumas, cougars are known for their strength, agility, and awesome ability to jump. Their exceptionally powerful legs enable them to leap 30 feet from a standstill, or to jump 15 feet straight up a cliff wall. A cougar’s overall strength and powerful jaws allow it to take down and drag prey larger than itself (Fig. 2). Cougars are the largest members of the cat family in North America. Adult males average approximately 140 pounds but in a perfect situation may weigh 180 pounds and measure 7-8 feet long from nose to tip of tail. Adult males stand about 30 inches tall at the shoulder. Adult female cougars average about 25 percent smaller than males. Cougars vary in color from reddish-brown to Figure 1. In rough terrain, cougar daybeds are usually in tawny (deerlike) to gray, with a black tip on their long a cave or a shallow nook on a cliff face or rock outcrop. tail. An average of two kittens are born every other year. (From Christensen, Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: A Cougars occur throughout Washington where suitable Pictorial Introduction.) cover and prey are found. The cougar population for the year 2002 was estimated to be 2,400 to 3,500 animals. Statewide, the cougar population is likely declining. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has nine management zones around the state designated for “maintain” or “decline,” and adjusts harvest levels accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Territory Tango
    PREPARATION: Make craft dough (or paper territories for Modification). CLASS TIME: one class period VOCABULARY: territory, forest interior species, fragmentation TEACHER’S MATERIALS: craft dough–enough for one lump of dough per student (or paper and compasses for Modification); round cookie cutters or similar items, such as jar lids–one for each GUIDE student; rolling pins or other similar items; waxed paper; a table knife NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS: MS-ESS3-4, MS-LS2-4, MS-LS2-5 ACTIVITY Territory Tango OVERVIEW the state not covered by prairie was covered by forests Students make craft dough models of bird territories to of oak and hickory, maple and basswood, as well as learn about habitat requirements of interior forest mixed broadleaved trees and conifers, and other forest species compared to edge species. types. In these great forest tracts lived many kinds of mammals and birds. CONCEPTS n People and some birds depend on forests for their Some wildlife species need large forest stands to find needs. food and shelter to successfully rear their young. Among n them are many species of birds, called interior forest Bird populations are affected by human impact on species, because they live in the interior of large forest- their habitat. ed areas. The ovenbird and scarlet tanager are exam- n Each forest management option may limit other for- ples of interior forest birds. est uses. n As Illinois was being settled, trees were cut for lumber Human use and management of forests affects bird and to clear the land for farming, much as people are populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lemurs of Madagascar – a Strategy for Their
    Cover photo: Diademed sifaka (Propithecus diadema), Critically Endangered. (Photo: Russell A. Mittermeier) Back cover photo: Indri (Indri indri), Critically Endangered. (Photo: Russell A. Mittermeier) Lemurs of Madagascar A Strategy for Their Conservation 2013–2016 Edited by Christoph Schwitzer, Russell A. Mittermeier, Nicola Davies, Steig Johnson, Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Josia Razafindramanana, Edward E. Louis Jr., and Serge Rajaobelina Illustrations and layout by Stephen D. Nash IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation Conservation International This publication was supported by the Conservation International/Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation Primate Action Fund, the Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society, Houston Zoo, the Institute for the Conservation of Tropical Environments, and Primate Conservation, Inc. Published by: IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation, and Conservation International Copyright: © 2013 IUCN Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Inquiries to the publisher should be directed to the following address: Russell A. Mittermeier, Chair, IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA Citation: Schwitzer C, Mittermeier RA, Davies N, Johnson S, Ratsimbazafy J, Razafindramanana J, Louis Jr. EE, Rajaobelina S (eds). 2013. Lemurs of Madagascar: A Strategy for Their Conservation 2013–2016. Bristol, UK: IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation, and Conservation International. 185 pp. ISBN: 978-1-934151-62-4 Illustrations: © Stephen D.
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Defense Strategies in the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis Cardinalis): Who Is the Bigger Threat?
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Master's Theses Fall 12-1-2015 Territorial Defense Strategies in the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis): Who is the Bigger Threat? Kaylee M. Gentry University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, and the Ornithology Commons Recommended Citation Gentry, Kaylee M., "Territorial Defense Strategies in the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis): Who is the Bigger Threat?" (2015). Master's Theses. 161. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/161 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TERRITORIAL DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN THE NORTHERN CARDINAL (CARDINALIS CARDINALIS): WHO IS THE BIGGER THREAT? by Kaylee Michelle Gentry A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School and the Department of Biological Sciences at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Approved: ________________________________________________ Dr. Frank Moore, Committee Chair Distinguished Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. Jodie Jawor, Thesis Director Associate Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. David Echevarria, Committee Member Associate Professor, Psychology ________________________________________________ Dr. Karen S. Coats Dean of the Graduate School December 2015 ABSTRACT TERRITORIAL DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN THE NORTHERN CARDINAL (CARDINALIS CARDINALIS): WHO IS THE BIGGER THREAT? by Kaylee Michelle Gentry December 2015 This thesis examines the use of defensive strategies in relation to territories year round in the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
    [Show full text]
  • Some Aspects of the Behavior and Ecology of the Sea Otter, Enhydra Lutris, in Montague Strait, Prince William Sound, Alaska
    SOME ASPECTS OF THE BEHAVIOR AMD ECOLOGY OF THE SEA OTTER, ENHYDRA LUTRIS, IN MONTAGUE STRAIT, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALASKA By Donald G~ Calkins SOME ASPECTS OF THE BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY OF THE SEA OTTER, ENHYDRA LUTRIS, IN MONTAGUE STRAIT, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALASKA APPROVED: Chairman Department Head APPROVED: ~ct Ud.. Date ~/f/72- Dean of the College of Biological ~ Sciences and Renewable Resources Vice President for Research and Advanced Study SOME ASPECTS OF THE BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY OF THE SEA OTTER, ENHYDRA LUTRIS, IN MONTAGUE STRAIT, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Donald G. Calkins, B.A. College, Alaska ~y~n ABSTRACT Distribution. feeding habits, and territoriality and general behavior of the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) were studied in Montague Strait, Prince William Sound, Alaska during May through September, 1971. Otters were found associated with certain features of the habitat such as: kelp beds (Nereocystis luetkeana), a lagoon, a favored feeding area, and a sheltered area. No otters were seen hauled out on land nor were any areas used exclusively by males or females seen. Montague Strait otters feed primarily on three groups of prey animals: pelecypods, decapods, and asteroids. The most important species in each of these groups are Saxidomus giganteus, Telmessus cheiragonus and Evasterias troschelii, respectively. The otters expended 81% of their feeding effort on pelecypods, 7~ on decapods, and 0.8% on asteroids. Clams were dug from the bottom by the otters, and opened with the aid of stones.
    [Show full text]