4.2 Article

Constraints on home range behaviour affect nutritional condition in urban house sparrows (Passer domesticus)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 41-50

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01493.x

关键词

body condition; habitat fragmentation; landscape connectivity; ptilochronology; radio telemetry; urban ecology

资金

  1. Ghent University [01J01808]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In human-dominated landscapes (semi)natural habitats are typically embedded in tracts of unsuitable habitat. Under such conditions, habitat characteristics and grain size of the surrounding landscape may affect how much food, and at what cost, is available for sedentary species with low home-range plasticity. Here we combine behavioural radio-tracking, feather ptilochronology, and landscape analysis to test how nutritional condition varies with home range size in 13 house sparrow [Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)] populations along an urban gradient. Urban individuals occupied smaller home ranges than conspecifics from rural areas, most distinctly if key cover was highly scattered. In urban plots, patch connectivity, home range sizes, and activity areas were positively correlated, indicating that individual ranging behaviour was related to the spatial distribution of suitable habitat. Urban House sparrows also showed the smallest feather growth bars, which were positively related to home range size at plot level. In contrast, growth bar widths and home range sizes were negatively related in rural populations, whereas in suburban populations, both variables varied independently. We conclude that individuals from progressively more built-up areas show a restricted ability to adjust their daily ranging behaviour to the scattered distribution of critical resources. This may complement other putative causes of the widespread population decline of urban house sparrows. (C) 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 101, 41-50.

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

4.2
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