4.4 Article

Density-dependent natal philopatry in southern House Wrens

期刊

IBIS
卷 165, 期 2, 页码 436-447

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ibi.13157

关键词

breeding; density-dependency; dispersal; juvenile recruitment rate; Troglodytes aedon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the decision of whether southern House Wrens stay or leave their natal site, and finds that juvenile recruitment is negatively affected by adult breeding abundance in the hatching year. It is not related to other social and demographic factors, and there is no evidence of inbreeding avoidance. The results suggest that philopatry rate may be regulated by intraspecific competition for resources.
Staying or leaving the natal site is a decision that not only affects the individual but may have profound implications at the population level. Many studies have analysed natal philopatry in passerines, albeit mostly migratory species in the northern hemisphere. Here we explore the potential ecological drivers of the individual decision to remain or leave the natal site in a southern hemisphere sedentary species, the southern House Wren Troglodytes aedon bonariae. Using a 14-year database, we assessed if juvenile local recruitment was affected by demographic and/or social factors. Average annual juvenile recruitment was 18.4%, but it varied between years (range 9.3-44%), and male recruitment was higher than female recruitment. Juvenile recruitment was negatively associated with adult breeding abundance in the hatching year, but was not related to variation in adult sex ratio, adult breeding abundance in the breeding year or nesting success. Also, we found no evidence of inbreeding avoidance. The results seem to support the hypothesis that philopatry rate is regulated by intraspecific competition for resources. Juveniles that fledge in years when the density of breeding adults is low may have advantages in obtaining territories and mates early, benefiting from settling in familiar areas and reducing dispersal costs.

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

4.4
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