DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief Report Sex-Specific Diet Analysis of the Eurasian Eagle Owl in Finland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief Report Sex-Specific Diet Analysis of the Eurasian Eagle Owl in Finland Ornis Fennica 91:195–200. 2014 Brief report Sex-specific diet analysis of the Eurasian Eagle Owl in Finland Heimo Mikkola* & Risto Tornberg H. Mikkola, Department of Biology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O.Box 1627, FI- 70211 Kuopio, Finland. * Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected] R. Tornberg, Department of Biology, P.O.Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Fin- land Received 28 March 2014, accepted 17 June 2014 1. Introduction the smaller male that is mainly responsible for prey deliveries during the breeding season. Based on Birds of prey typically show reversed sexual size specimens found in good condition at the Zoologi- dimorphism (RSD), with females clearly larger cal museum of University of Oulu, Finland, fe- than males, for what purpose has aroused a pleth- male owls from Finland had an average weight of ora of hypothesis to explain it (see Krüger 2005). 2760 g (N = 50), while male weights averaged One of the earliest explanations has been avoid- 2200 g (N = 35). The RSD index of the Eagle Owls ance of competition between the mates (Temeles is 9.8 (calculated as in Amadon (1943) and Earhart 1985). Though avoidance of competition does not & Johnson (1970) by using the cube root of body explain the reversed nature of the sizes of the sexes mass to compare the indices of linear measure- it may be one mechanism to maintain it (Sunde et ments). This is the third highest value of all Euro- al. 2003, Krüger 2005). The Eurasian Eagle Owl pean owls (Mikkola 1982). It seems logical to hy- (Bubo bubo), hereafter termed Eagle Owl, is the pothesize that the heavier females may reduce in- largest owl in the world, a typical top-predator be- traspecific competition for food with males by tak- ing able to kill smaller birds of prey and owls ing larger prey than their smaller mates. However, (Mikkola 1983, 2013, Tornberg & Colpaert 2001). this is not easy to verify as it is not possible to dif- Its breeding season diet is well-known and, based ferentiate between pellets and food remains from on pellet analysis and nest site prey remains, males and females. In addition, a Russian study shows very broad variation (Mikkola 1983, has shown that male Eagle Owls mainly bring Sulkava et al. 2008). The Eagle Owl, mainly de- larger prey to the nest than they would normally pendent on small mammals as its staple food dur- eat themselves, making it even more difficult to ing the breeding season (Korpimäki et al. 1990, identify sex-related diet differences from pellets Sulkava et al. 2008), exhibits high RSD (Mikkola and food remains at the nest (Ekimov 2009, see 1982). also Sonerud 1992 and Sonerud et al. 2013, for However, sexual differences in diet are not ex- theoretical point of view). pressed by pellet and food remains analysis, which In this study we used the stomach contents of might arise from the fact that in Eagle Owls, it is Eagle Owls (primarily 1st winter birds) made avail- 196 ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014 Fig.1. Number of dead Eagle Owls sent to the Zoological museum of University of Oulu (grey bars) and correspond- ing vole abundance in- dex (solid line) near city of Oulu. First two peak years of voles (before the vole monitoring started at the University of Oulu) are presented by arrows according to Mikkola 1981. able from museums or taxidermists, which is a re- Prey items were identified based on bones, liable method to study between sex differences in hairs and feathers using reference material of the diet provided that the owls have been sexed inter- Zoological museum. Small mammals were identi- nally (Mikkola 1971). We expect that based on a fied into species level by jaw and tooth morphol- remarkable size difference between the sexes a ogy according to Siivonen & Sulkava (1994). corresponding difference in the prey size should For the prey items, we used average weights exist. given by: (a) Siivonen & Sulkava (1994) and Jensen (1994) for mammals; and (b) von Haart- man et al. (1963–1972) for birds. For birds show- 2. Material and methods ing remarkable sexual dimorphism we used spe- cial weight for the sex in question. Differences in The contents of the stomachs of 66 Finnish Eagle diet between sexes were tested by ¤2-tests in a 2 × 2 Owls, found dead along roads, having flown into contingency table. We applied Yates continuity power lines and having been killed and confis- correction, which is recommended when data is cated after illegal hunting, were analysed. A total divided into 2 categories or frequency within some of 85 prey items were identified from 42 females of cells remains low (Ranta et al. 1989). Diet width and 48 from 24 males. The samples were collected was calculated by using Levins’ index (Levins S 2 by taxidermist Pentti Alaja, and the University of 1968) B =1/ Pi ,inwhichPi is the proportion of Oulu from 1931 to 2006. Around 47% of the owls the ith prey or prey group. were found dead in autumn (September–Novem- ber), 14% in mid-winter (December–February) and rest 40% during the breeding season (March– 3. Results August). Of those owls for which cause of death was known (N = 51), 43% died in collision with The most common prey for both male and female power lines, 33% in traffic accidents, 10% in colli- owls was Field vole (Microtus agrestis) by num- sion with unknown obstacles, 4% were shot and bers (31 and 29% respectively), but this vole rep- for 2% cause of death was unknown. More than resented only 3% of the female and 4% of the male half (55%) of our age determined study birds were diet biomass. Somewhat surprisingly, the Harvest juveniles (N = 38). Owls were found, most often mouse (Micromys minutus) was the second most south of the city of Oulu (25°30’ E, 65°00’ N) at common prey by numbers, making 22% of the diet less than 200 km distance. We classified each of females and 29% of the males. Due to its small sample according to whether it was found in a size (avg. 7 g), the weight percentages were only good or poor vole year based on vole trappings 0.4% for the females and 0.7% for the males (Table mainly by staff of Zoological museum of Univer- 1). By pooling small mammals together, the differ- sity of Oulu and the Forest Research Institute ence between females and males was not statisti- (METLA) (see Fig. 1). According to our classifi- cally significant (¤2 = 0.939, df = 1, p >0.1).Both cation, 35 owls originated from a poor vole year female and male mainly ate Mountain hares and 31 from a good vole year (Fig. 1). (Lepus timidus), which formed over 56% of the Mikkola & Tornberg: Sex-specific diet in the Eurasian Eagle Owl 197 Table 1. Sexual differences in the diet of Eurasian Eagle Owls in Finland based on 66 stomach contents (42 females and 24 males). Average weights calculated from Siivonen & Sulkava (1994) and Jensen (1994) for mammals, and from von Haartman et al. (1963–1972) for birds. Females Males Total Prey item Weight g % mass % N % mass % N % mass % N Micromys minutus 7 0.4 22.4 0.7 29.2 0.5 24.8 Myodes glareolus 24 0.2 3.5 0.5 6.3 0.3 4.5 Small passerines 25 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.8 Cricetidae sp. 25 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.8 Microtus agrestis 40 3.0 30.6 4.1 29.2 3.3 30.1 Arvicola terrestris 150 1.3 3.5 0.9 2.3 Rattus norwegicus 225 5.2 9.4 14.7 18.8 7.8 12.8 Sciurus vulgaris 290 4.2 5.9 3.0 3.8 Erinaceus europaeus 765 11.0 5.9 5.5 2.1 9.5 4.5 Ondatra zibethica 1,100 3.2 1.2 2.3 0.8 Lepus timidus 3,900 56.1 5.9 56.5 4.2 56.2 5.3 Small birds < 100 2.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 Mid-sized birds 100–1,000 0.4 6.7 0.3 4.8 Large birds > 1,000 2.4 8.6 4.2 17.1 3.0 11.0 Rana sp. 50 0.7 4.2 0.2 1.5 Number prey 85 48 133 Mean prey/stomach 2.0 2.0 2.0 Mean prey size 828 575 736 Levins’ index 5.996 4.664 food biomass for both sexes. Females took more empty or contained only some unidentified hair, Hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus)andmales but some individuals had remarkable numbers of more Brown rats (Rattus norwegicus), both mak- prey items in their stomachs. One male had nine ing more than 10% of their diet biomass. The aver- Harvest mice in its stomach (total stomach weight age weight of the 85 prey items taken by female = 63 g) and another male had three Harvest mice, was 828 g, while the average weight of male prey one Bank vole and five Field voles in its stomach based on 48 items was 575 g. The number of large (total stomach weight = 245 g). One male took two prey above rat size accounted 27.1% for females Brown rats, the average weight of which makes and 10.4% for males, the difference being statisti- 450 g. A stomach from one female contained nine cally significant (¤2 = 4.160, df = 1, p < 0.05). The Field voles, while the highest number of prey difference was much less when taking into account found in a single stomach came from a female that the contribution to the diet biomass: 89.2% and had 14 items: nine Harvest mice, four Field voles 79.1%, respectively.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rediscovery, Biology, Vocalisations and Taxonomy of Fish Owls in Turkey
    Rediscovery, biology, vocalisations and taxonomy of fish owls in Turkey Arnoud B van den Berg, Soner Bekir, Peter de Knijff & The Sound Approach n the Western Palearctic (WP) region, Brown Distribution and traditional taxonomy IFish Owl Bubo zeylonensis is one of the rarest Until recently, fish owls were grouped under the and least-known birds. The species’ range is huge, genus Ketupa. However, recent DNA research has from the Mediterranean east to Indochina, but it is shown that for reasons of paraphyly it is better to probably only in India and Sri Lanka that it is include this genus together with Scotopelia and regularly observed. In the 19th and 20th century, Nyctea in Bubo. Former Ketupa species, Brown a total of c 15 documented records became known Fish Owl, Tawny Fish Owl B flavipes and Buffy of the westernmost and palest taxon, semenowi, Fish Owl B ketupu cluster as close relatives of and no definite breeding was described for the Asian Bubo species like Spot-bellied Eagle-Owl WP. These records included just one for Turkey in B nipalensis and Barred Eagle-Owl B sumatranus the 20th century, in 1990. However, while the (König et al 1999, Sangster et al 2003, Knox 2008, species appears to be extinct in other WP coun- Wink et al 2008, Redactie Dutch Birding 2010). tries, several pairs have been found in southern Based on external morphology and geography, Turkey since 2004. New findings in 2009-10 cre- four subspecies of Brown Fish Owl are tradition- ated a rapid increase in our understanding of the ally recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • Tc & Forward & Owls-I-IX
    USDA Forest Service 1997 General Technical Report NC-190 Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere Second International Symposium February 5-9, 1997 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Editors: James R. Duncan, Zoologist, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Wildlife Branch, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources Box 24, 200 Saulteaux Crescent Winnipeg, MB CANADA R3J 3W3 <[email protected]> David H. Johnson, Wildlife Ecologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA, USA 98501-1091 <[email protected]> Thomas H. Nicholls, retired formerly Project Leader and Research Plant Pathologist and Wildlife Biologist USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN, USA 55108-6148 <[email protected]> I 2nd Owl Symposium SPONSORS: (Listing of all symposium and publication sponsors, e.g., those donating $$) 1987 International Owl Symposium Fund; Jack Israel Schrieber Memorial Trust c/o Zoological Society of Manitoba; Lady Grayl Fund; Manitoba Hydro; Manitoba Natural Resources; Manitoba Naturalists Society; Manitoba Critical Wildlife Habitat Program; Metro Propane Ltd.; Pine Falls Paper Company; Raptor Research Foundation; Raptor Education Group, Inc.; Raptor Research Center of Boise State University, Boise, Idaho; Repap Manitoba; Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada; USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDA Forest Service, including the North Central Forest Experiment Station; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; The Wildlife Society - Washington Chapter; Wildlife Habitat Canada; Robert Bateman; Lawrence Blus; Nancy Claflin; Richard Clark; James Duncan; Bob Gehlert; Marge Gibson; Mary Houston; Stuart Houston; Edgar Jones; Katherine McKeever; Robert Nero; Glenn Proudfoot; Catherine Rich; Spencer Sealy; Mark Sobchuk; Tom Sproat; Peter Stacey; and Catherine Thexton.
    [Show full text]
  • About Owls By: AV
    All About Owls By: AV 1 Contents 1. Say Hi To Owls_________________________ p. 3 2. Body Parts_____________________________ p. 4-5 3. Getting Hungry__________________________ p.6-7 4. So Many Owls__________________________ p.8-11 5. Where Are They_________________________ p. 12 6. Got To Go, Bye__________________________ p. 13 7. Quiz Zone______________________________ p. 14 8. About The Author________________________ p. 15 9. Glossary_______________________________ p. 16 10. References___________________________ p.17 2 Say Hi To Owls Swoosh! The great grey owl soares overhead seeking for some food. Then swoosh the owl spots a little mouse crawling through the grass and strikes at it. In this book I will teach you all about owls. If you don’t know what an owl is then this book will be good for you. In this book you will learn about their body parts, what they eat, and the types of owls. I hope you enjoy this book. 3 Body Parts Owls have way more body parts than you think. If you look to the right you will see a picture of all their body parts. But some of their most important body parts are their eyes witch help them see in the dark, their huge ears which help them hear very well, and their flexible necks. 4 Great Big Eyes Huge ears Owls have big eyes. For example, if you Owls have huge ears. Teacher fox says, open your mouth into an O shape that is the “if you lift up the feathers you can see the size of an owls eye. Owls can use those eyes back of their eyes through the ear.” That is to see in the dark.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffy Fish Owl Ketupa Ketupu Breeding in Sundarbans Tiger Reserve, India Manoj Sharma, Soma Jha & Atul Jain
    SHARMA ET. AL.: Buffy Fish Owl 27 Photos: Praveen ES 26. Short-tailed Shearwater in flight. 27. Wedge-tailed Shearwater. Though it is considered to be a vagrant in India, there are of these birds. We are grateful to Nameer P. O., College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural reports of regular sightings of these birds off the western coasts University, for his support, and Social Forestry, Kerala Forest Department, for organising of the Malayan peninsula (Giri et al. 2013). This sighting from the trip. We wish to thank participants from the College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural the Arabian Sea, first off the Kerala coast, together with the ones University; Sree Sankaracharya University, Kalady; Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Pookode; and Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi. mentioned earlier, suggests that some birds drift off from their normal course of migration, in the western Pacific, to cross the Indian Ocean during their spring migration. References On our return journey we photographed a Wedge-tailed BirdLife International. 2014. BirdLife International Species factsheet: Puffinus tenuirostris. Shearwater A. pacifica [27], which had been earlier recorded Website: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/home. [Accessed on 10 June 2014.] from the seas off Kannur, in Kerala, in May 2011(Praveen et al. Giri, P., Dey, A., & Sen, S. K., 2013. Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris from 2013). This is the second photographic record of this species Namkhana, West Bengal: A first record for India. Indian BIRDS 8 (5): 131. from India. Praveen J., Jayapal, R., Pittie, A., 2013. Notes on Indian rarities—1: Seabirds. Indian BIRDS 8 (5): 113–125.
    [Show full text]
  • OWLS and COYOTES
    AT HOME WITH NATURE: eLearning Resource | Suggested for: general audiences, families OWLS and COYOTES The Eastern Coyote The Eastern coyote, common to the Greater Toronto Area, is a hybrid between the Western coyote and Eastern wolf. Adults typically weigh between 10–22 kg, but thick fur makes them appear bigger. They have grey and reddish-brown fur, lighter underparts, a pointed nose with a red-brown top, a grey patch between the eyes, and a bushy, black-tipped tail. Coyote ears are more triangular than a wolf’s. Coyotes are not pack animals, but a mother will stay with her young until they are about one year old. Coyotes communicate with a range of sounds including yaps, whines, barks, and howls. Habitat Eastern coyotes are very adaptable and can survive in both rural and urban habitats. They often build their dens in old woodchuck holes, which they expand to about 30 cm in diameter and about 3 m in depth. Although less common, coyotes also build dens in hollow trees. Diet What is on the menu for coyotes? Check off each food type. Squirrels Frogs Grasshoppers Dog kibble Berries Rats Humans Food compost Garden vegetables Snakes Small birds Deer If you selected everything, except for humans, you are correct! Coyotes are opportunistic feeders that consume a variety of foods including fallen fruit, seeds, crops, and where they can find it pet food and compost. However, their diet is comprised mainly of insects, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals. Their natural rodent control is beneficial to city dwellers and farmers alike. Preying on small mammals does mean though that our pets are on the menu, so it is important to keep them on leash close to you.
    [Show full text]
  • Owls.1. Newton, I. 2002. Population Limitation in Holarctic Owls. Pp. 3-29
    Owls.1. Newton, I. 2002. Population limitation in Holarctic Owls. Pp. 3-29 in ‘Ecology and conservation of owls’, ed. I. Newton, R. Kavenagh, J. Olsen & I. Taylor. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. POPULATION LIMITATION IN HOLARCTIC OWLS IAN NEWTON Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS, United Kingdom. This paper presents an appraisal of research findings on the population dynamics, reproduction and survival of those Holarctic Owl species that feed on cyclically-fluctuating rodents or lagomorphs. In many regions, voles and lemmings fluctuate on an approximate 3–5 year cycle, but peaks occur in different years in different regions, whereas Snowshoe Hares Lepus americanus fluctuate on an approximate 10-year cycle, but peaks tend to be synchronised across the whole of boreal North America. Owls show two main responses to fluctuations in their prey supply. Resident species stay on their territories continuously, but turn to alternative prey when rodents (or lagomorphs) are scarce. They survive and breed less well in low than high rodent (or lagomorph) years. This produces a lag in response, so that years of high owl densities follow years of high prey densities (examples: Barn Owl Tyto alba, Tawny Owl Strix aluco, Ural Owl S. uralensis). In contrast, preyspecific nomadic species can breed in different areas in different years, wherever prey are plentiful. They thus respond more or less immediately by movement to change in prey-supply, so that their local densities can match the local food-supply at the time, with minimum lag (examples: Short-eared Owl: Asio flammeus, Long-eared Owl A.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Saw-Whet Owls: Influence of Environmental Factors on Autumn Migration Dynamics
    Running head: NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWLS 1 Northern Saw-whet Owls: Influence of Environmental Factors on Autumn Migration Dynamics Hannah Murphy A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Fall 2016 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWLS 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Gene Sattler, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Timothy Brophy, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Edward Martin, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWLS 3 Abstract A portion of the population of the Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) leaves its breeding range in Canada and the northern United States each fall to winter where lesser snow cover allows easier access to prey. Study of its migratory dynamics is difficult, however, both because of its nocturnal habits and because it does not vocalize readily off of its breeding territory. Since 2002 banding studies in the Lynchburg area have investigated the migration dynamics of this species in central Virginia. However, few studies have examined the influence of environmental factors on capture rates of saw- whets during migration. Data were analyzed for the falls of 2007 and 2012, which were the two years of greatest migration volume in central Virginia, being “irruption years” in this species’ migratory cycle. In both years, nightly owl capture rates were strongly correlated with prevailing wind direction, with highest capture rates occurring during nights in which winds were predominantly out of the northeast quadrant.
    [Show full text]
  • Ketupa Zeylonensis) Released More Than a Decade After Admission to a Wildlife Rescue Centre in Hong Kong SAR China
    Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China The Brown Fish Owl, Sam, in captivity at Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden April 2008 Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Publication Series: No 3 Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China Authors Rupert Griffiths¹ and Gary Ades ¹Present Address: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, West Hatch Wildlife Centre, Taunton, Somerset, TA 35RT, United Kingdom Citation Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden. 2008. Survivorship and dispersal ability of a rehabilitated Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) released more than a decade after admission to a wildlife rescue centre in Hong Kong SAR China. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Publication Series No.3. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region. Copyright © Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Corporation Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, N.T. Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region April 2008 ii CONTENTS Page Execuitve Summary 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results 4 Discussion 4 Acknowledgments 5 References 5 Table 7 Figures 8 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Brown Fish Owl (Ketupa zeylonensis) which had been maintained in captivity at Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, for 11 years following its rescue, was released at a site in Sai Kung in Hong Kong on 28th November 2003. Post-release monitoring was carried out and the bird was confirmed to have survived for at least 3 months before the radio-transmitter was dropped.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Protocol for the Great Grey Owl Within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan
    SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE GREAT GRAY OWL WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN Version 3.0 January 12, 2004 Prepared for the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management By Deborah L. Quintana-Coyer-Taxon Leader -USFS Richard P. Gerhardt- Taxon Expert-Sage Science Matthew D. Broyles-Team Member-BLM Jeffrey A. Dillon-Team Member-USFWS Cheryl A. Friesen-Team Member-USFS Steven A. Godwin -Team Member-BLM Shane D. Kamrath-Team Member-USFS And with editorial assistance from Kimberly L. Garvey-USFS Survey Protocol for the Great Grey Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan 1 Survey Protocol for the Great Grey Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 I. TRIGGERS FOR SURVEY 7 Trigger Criteria 7 Activities that are not generally habitat-disturbing 7 Activities that are generally habitat-disturbing 7 II. SPECIES DESCRIPTION 8 III. ECOLOGY 9 Range 9 General Ecology 9 Ecological Differences 10 Diet 10 Breeding/Courtship 11 Habitat Use 11 Nest Structure 12 Nesting Habitat 12 Roosting Habitat 14 Foraging Habitat 14 Elevation Use 16 Wintering Habitat 16 Areas Where Pre-Disturbance Surveys are NOT Needed for a Reasonable 16 Assurance of Persistence IV. METHODS 17 Survey Period 17 Pre-Survey Planning 18 Calling Techniques 19 Recommended Equipment Specifications 19 Conducting Surveys 20 Follow-up Surveys 22 Requirements 23 Determining a Known Site 24 Determining Other Observations 24 StatusBaiting or “Mousing” 24 Data Management 25 Training/Qualifications 25 V. APPENDICES 27 Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Food Habits of the Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius Acadicus) and the Western Screech-Owl (Otus Kennicottii) in Southwestern Idaho
    Comparison of Food Habits of the Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) and the Western Screech-owl (Otus kennicottii) in Southwestern Idaho Charlotte (Charley) Rains1 Abstract.—I compared the breeding-season diets of Northern Saw- whet Owls (Aegolius acadicus) and Western Screech-owls (Otus kennicottii). Prey items were obtained from regurgitated pellets collected from saw-whet owl and screech-owl nests found in nest boxes in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in southwestern Idaho. A total of 2,250 prey items of saw-whet owls and 702 prey items of screech-owls were identified. Saw-whet owl diet was analyzed for the years 1990-1993; screech-owl diet was analyzed for 1992 only. The most frequently found prey items in the saw-whet owls diet were: Peromyscus, Mus, Microtus and Reithrodontomys; there were no significant differences among years. When saw-whet owl prey frequency data were pooled across years and compared to the 1992 screech-owl data, significant differences in diet were found. However, a comparison of the 1992 saw-whet prey frequency data with the screech-owl data showed no significant differences. In addition, the among year saw-whet owl prey biomass was analyzed, and again there were no significant differences. Micro- tus, followed by Mus, accounted for the largest proportion of prey biomass (by percent) in the diets of saw-whet owls for all years. When saw-whet owl prey biomass data were pooled across years and compared to the 1992 screech-owl prey biomass, significant differ- ences in diet were found. The 1992 saw-whet prey biomass com- pared to the 1992 screech-owl prey biomass also was significantly different.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Owl (Aegolius Funereus) Surveys on the Sawtooth and Boise
    BOREAL OWL (Aeqolius funereus) SURVEYS ON THE SAWTOOTH AND BOISE NATIONAL FORESTS BY Craig Groves Natural Heritage Section Nongame Wildlife and Endangered Species Program Bureau of Wildlife July 1988 Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 S. Walnut St. Bow 25 Boise ID 83707 Jerry M. Conley, Director Cooperative Challenge Cost Share Project Sawtooth and Boise National Forests Idaho Department of Fish and Game Purchase Order Nos. 43-0261-8-663 (BNF) 40-0270-8-13 (SNP) TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................... Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 Methods .................................................................................................................................2 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................6 Management Considerations ...............................................................................................13 Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................15 Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................16 Appendix A .........................................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in the Study of Irruptive Migration
    Advances in the study of irruptive migration Ian Newton1 Newton I. 2006. Advances in the study of irruptive migration. Ardea 94(3): 433–460. This paper discusses the movement patterns of two groups of birds which are generally regarded as irruptive migrants, namely (a) boreal finches and others that depend on fluctuating tree-fruit crops, and (b) owls and others that depend on cyclically fluctuating rodent popula- tions. Both groups specialise on food supplies which, in particular regions, fluctuate more than 100-fold from year to year. However, seed- crops in widely separated regions may fluctuate independently of one another, as may rodent populations, so that poor food supplies in one region may coincide with good supplies in another. If individuals are to have access to rich food supplies every year, they must often move hun- dreds or thousands of kilometres from one breeding area to another. In years of widespread food shortage (or high numbers relative to food supplies) extending over many thousands or millions of square kilome- tres, large numbers of individuals migrate to lower latitudes, as an ‘irruptive migration’. For these reasons, the distribution of the popula- tion, in both summer and winter, varies greatly from year to year. In irruptive migrants, in contrast to regular migrants, site fidelity is poor, and few individuals return to the same breeding areas in succes- sive years (apart from owls in the increase phase of the cycle). Moreover, ring recoveries and radio-tracking confirm that the same indi- viduals can breed in different years in areas separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometres.
    [Show full text]