4.5 Article

Are innovative species ecological generalists? A test in North American birds

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1286-1293

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr130

关键词

cognition; diet breadth; ecological generalism; foraging; innovation

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  2. Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research
  3. Ramon y Cajal
  4. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (Spain) [CGL2007-66257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foraging innovation occurs when animals exploit novel food sources or invent new foraging techniques. Species vary widely in their rates of innovation, and these differences can be quantified using counts of novel behavior observed in the wild. One of the assumed benefits of innovativeness is that it allows species to exploit a wider variety of habitats and foods, enhancing survival when resources are in shortage or when individuals invade new environments. However, the relationship between innovation propensity and ecological generalism lacks firm empirical support. Moreover, innovativeness does not only imply benefits but may also lead to higher risks incurred in the wide array of habitats exploited. In this study, we test whether innovative species exploit a wider variety of habitats and food types as well as face the potential risk of more predators as a consequence of their ecological generalism. Using data for 193 North American bird species in a phylogenetically informed analysis, we find a significant positive relationship between innovation rate and habitat generalism, but not diet breadth. Although habitat generalism is also associated with exposure to a wider variety of predators, there is no direct relationship between innovation rate and predation. Our results suggest that although innovators use a wider variety of habitats, they are not necessarily diet generalists, challenging the classic view that feeding generalism is equivalent to feeding flexibility.

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