4.5 Article

Traditional versus non-traditional nest-site choice: alternative decision strategies for nest-site selection

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 117-124

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2193-8

关键词

Nest-site selection; Nest-site tradition; Use of social information; Past reproductive success; Lesser grey shrike

类别

资金

  1. Jubila-umsfondsproject [7223]
  2. Slovak Grant Agency [2/0110/09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to understand habitat selection, it is important to consider the way individual animals assess the suitability of a future reproductive site. One way of investigating mechanisms (such as those involved in nest site selection) is to examine breeding success and habitat characteristics in terms of animals returning to a place where they have already reproduced and using the same location over successive years or searching for new alternatives. This approach seems especially suitable for testing recent hypotheses suggesting that nest site selection is an integrative process that includes the use of social information (e.g. past breeding success of conspecifics). Determining the factors that elicit conservative or innovative behaviour regarding nest-site selection could be important for improving our understanding of habitat selection decisions in animals. More than half of the nests of the long-distance migratory lesser grey shrike Lanius minor, are built in the same or neighbouring trees. We found no evidence that habitat characteristics influence nest-site tradition. On the contrary, social information in terms of the presence of conspecifics and past reproductive success in terms of complete nest failures due to nest predation (but not detailed information such as variation in fledgling number) influenced nest-site tradition. Hence, social information and past reproductive success may play a role in nest-site choice in this species. Our results further demonstrate that previous experience with a nest site does not appear to be beneficial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据