4.6 Article

Foraging Behaviour in Magellanic Woodpeckers Is Consistent with a Multi-Scale Assessment of Tree Quality

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159096

关键词

-

资金

  1. FONDECYT (Comision Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica) [1131133]
  2. FONDECYT [1131133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theoretical models predict that animals should make foraging decisions after assessing the quality of available habitat, but most models fail to consider the spatio-temporal scales at which animals perceive habitat availability. We tested three foraging strategies that explain how Magellanic woodpeckers (Campephilus magellanicus) assess the relative quality of trees: 1) Woodpeckers with local knowledge select trees based on the available trees in the immediate vicinity. 2) Woodpeckers lacking local knowledge select trees based on their availability at previously visited locations. 3) Woodpeckers using information from long-term memory select trees based on knowledge about trees available within the entire landscape. We observed foraging woodpeckers and used a Brownian Bridge Movement Model to identify trees available to woodpeckers along foraging routes. Woodpeckers selected trees with a later decay stage than available trees. Selection models indicated that preferences of Magellanic woodpeckers were based on clusters of trees near the most recently visited trees, thus suggesting that woodpeckers use visual cues from neighboring trees. In a second analysis, Cox's proportional hazards models showed that woodpeckers used information consolidated across broader spatial scales to adjust tree residence times. Specifically, woodpeckers spent more time at trees with larger diameters and in a more advanced stage of decay than trees available along their routes. These results suggest that Magellanic woodpeckers make foraging decisions based on the relative quality of trees that they perceive and memorize information at different spatio-temporal scales.

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

4.6
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