4.1 Article

Seasonal variation in the foraging behavior of neotropical tyrant flycatchers (Tyrannidae) in a Cerrado fragment, Brazil

期刊

ETHOLOGY ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 222-239

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03949370.2022.2026480

关键词

Alectrurus tricolor; Gubernetes yetapa; Xolmis velatus; Nengetus cinereus; grasslands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study quantified the foraging behavior of different tyrant flycatcher species in different seasons and found that the birds change their behavior between the dry and wet seasons. The study also explored the influence of individual sex and age on foraging behavior.
The foraging behavior of tyrant flycatchers (Aves Tyrannidae) is characterized by a stereotyped way of search-and-capture with subtle interspecific variations related to morphological and ecological factors. In this study, we quantified the foraging behavior of Cock-tailed tyrant (Alectrurus tricolor), Streamer-tailed tyrant (Gubernetes yetapa), Gray monjita (Nengetus cinereus), and White-rumped monjita (Xolmis velatus) in the dry and wet seasons to determine whether these species use foraging maneuvers, search time and the distances moved from one unsuccessful perch to a new perch (give-up flight) in different proportions between the 2 seasons. We also studied whether the foraging behavior of Cock-tailed tyrant is influenced by the sex and age of the individual. Our results indicated the birds change their behavior between the dry and wet seasons. Aerial hawking was predominantly used by Cock-tailed tyrant and Streamer-tailed tyrant during both seasons, but by White-rumped monjita only during the wet season. Perch-to-ground was the predominant hunting strategy for Gray monjita during both seasons and for White-rumped monjita during the dry season. We found Cock-tailed tyrant and White-rumped monjita covered greater distances during the wet season, when environmental conditions are more favorable, which may be related to breeding requirements.

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

4.1
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