1. bookVolume 12 (2018): Issue 1 (December 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2644-5247
First Published
09 Nov 2012
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Size of home range of Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) males during breeding season assessed by radio-telemetry in the Jizera Mountains, Czechia

Published Online: 02 Mar 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 12 (2018) - Issue 1 (December 2018)
Page range: 1 - 7
Received: 18 Sep 2018
Accepted: 29 Nov 2018
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2644-5247
First Published
09 Nov 2012
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Animal home ranges are typically characterized by their size, shape and a given time interval and can be affected by many different biotic and abiotic factors. Understanding of animal movements and assessing the size of their home ranges are essential topics in ecology and necessary for effective species protection, especially concerning birds of prey. Using radio-telemetry (VHF; 2.1 g tail-mounted tags) we studied the movements of two Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) males during the breeding season 2008 in a mountain area of Central Europe (the Czech Republic, the Jizera Mountains: 50˚ 50’ N, 15˚ 16’ E). We determined their average nocturnal hunting and diurnal roosting home range sizes. The mean hunting home range size calculated according to the 90% fixed kernel density estimator was 251.1 ± 43.2 ha (± SD). The mean roosting home range size calculated according to the 100% minimum convex polygon method was 57.9 ± 15.8 ha (± SD). The sizes of hunting home ranges during breeding in this study coincide with those previously reported by other studies focusing on Tengmalm’s owl males. However, we found the roosting home ranges were smaller in size compared to those previously reported. This result was most probably connected with different habitat structure in our study area, which was severally damaged by air-pollution in the past, thus probably offering fewer suitable hiding-places, for instance from predators. We found the roosting locations were concentrated in the oldest and densest Norway spruce forest patches. We emphasize that these parts of forest stands require the highest possible protection in our study area.

Keywords

Adams ES 2001: Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 277–303. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114034.10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114034Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Allen TFH & Starr TB 1982: Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

Andersson M 1981: On optimal predator search. Theoretical Population Biology 19: 58–86.10.1016/0040-5809(81)90035-6Search in Google Scholar

Belmonte LR 2005: Home range and habitat characteristics of boreal owls in northeastern Minnesota. St. Pauli, University of Minnesota.Search in Google Scholar

Bondrup-Nielsen S 1978: Vocalizations, nesting, and habitat preferences of the boreal owl, (Aegolius funereus), in North America. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Search in Google Scholar

Börger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S & Coulson TIM 2006: Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 1393–1405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x.10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x17032372Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Burt WH 1943: Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24: 346–352.10.2307/1374834Search in Google Scholar

Bye FN, Jacobsen BV & Sonerud GA 1992: Auditory prey location in a pause-travel predator – search height, search time, and attack range of Tengmalm’s owls (Aegolius funereus). Behavioral Ecology 3: 266–276.10.1093/beheco/3.3.266Search in Google Scholar

Cramp S 1985: The birds of the western Palaearctic, Vol. IV. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Bondrup-Nielsen S 1978: Vocalizations, nesting, and habitat preferences of the boreal owl, (Aegolius funereus), in North America. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Search in Google Scholar

Cushman SA, Chase M & Griffin C 2005: Elephants in space and time. Oikos 109: 331–341.10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13538.xSearch in Google Scholar

Darwin C 1861: On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray, London.10.5962/bhl.title.39967Search in Google Scholar

De Solla SR, Bonduriansky R & Brooks RJ 1999: Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 221–234.10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00279.xSearch in Google Scholar

Eldegard K & Sonerud GA 2009: Female offspring desertion and male-only care increase with natural and experimental increase in food abundance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276: 1713–1721. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1775.10.1098/rspb.2008.1775266099019324835Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Eldegard K & Sonerud GA 2010: Experimental increase in food supply influences the outcome of withinfamily conflicts in Tengmalm’s owl. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 815–826. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-009-0898-z.10.1007/s00265-009-0898-zOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Eldegard K & Sonerud GA 2012: Sex roles during postfledging care in birds: female Tengmalm’s owls contribute little to food provisioning. Journal of Ornithology 53: 385–398. DOI: 10.1007/s10336-011-0753-7.10.1007/s10336-011-0753-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hakkarainen H, Mykra S, Kurki S, Korpimäki E, Nikula A & Koivunen V 2003: Habitat composition as a determinant of reproductive success of Tengmalm’s owls under fluctuating food conditions. Oikos 100: 162–171. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11 906.x.10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11906.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hansteen TL, Andreassen HP & Ims RA 1997: Effects of spatiotemporal scale on autocorrelation and home range estimators. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 280–290.10.2307/3802583Search in Google Scholar

Harris S, Cresswell WJ, Forde PG, Trewhella WJ, Woollard T & Wray S 1990: Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data: A review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal Review 20: 97–1 23.10.1111/j.1365-2907.1990.tb00106.xSearch in Google Scholar

Hayne DW 1949: Calculation of size of home range. Journal of Mammalogy 30: 1–18.10.2307/1375190Search in Google Scholar

Hurlbert SH 1984: Pseudoreplication and the design of cological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54: 187–211.10.2307/1942661Search in Google Scholar

Jacobsen BV & Sonerud GA 1987: Home range of Tengmalm’s owl: A comparison between nocturnal hunting and diurnal roosting. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM 142: 189–192.Search in Google Scholar

Kenward RE 2001: A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, London.Search in Google Scholar

König C & Weick F 2008: Owls of the world. Second edition. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.Search in Google Scholar

Korpimäki E 1981: On the ecology and biology of Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) in southern Ostrobothnia and Soumenselkä, western Finland. Acta University Oulu A 118 Biology 13: 1–84.Search in Google Scholar

Korpimäki E & Hakkarainen H 2012: The boreal owl: ecology, behaviour and conservation of a forest dwelling predator. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511844164Search in Google Scholar

Kouba M, Bartoš L & Šťastný K 2013: Differential movement patterns of juvenile Tengmalm’s owls (Aegolius funereus) during the post-fledging dependence period in two years with contrasting prey abundance. PLoS One 8(7): e67034. DOI: 67010.61371/journal.pone.0067034.10.1371/journal.pone.0067034370092723843981Search in Google Scholar

Kouba M, Bartoš L, Korpimäki E & Zárybnická M 2015: Factors affecting the duration of nestling period and fledging order in Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus): Effect of wing length and hatching sequence. PLoS One 10(3): e0121641. DOI:121610.0121371/journal.pone.0121641.10.1371/journal.pone.0121641436850925793880Search in Google Scholar

Kouba M, Bartoš L, Tomášek V, Popelková A, Šťastný K & Zárybnická M 2017: Home range size of Tengmalm’s owl during breeding in Central Europe is determined by prey abundance. PLoS One 12(5): e0177314. DOI: 0177310.0171371/journal.pone.0177314.10.1371/journal.pone.0177314543666628545112Search in Google Scholar

Lane WH 1997: Distribution and ecology of boreal owls in northeast Minnesota. University ofMinnesota, St. Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Laver PN & Kelly MJ 2008: A critical review of home range studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 290–298. DOI: 10.2193/2005-589.10.2193/2005-589Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Mace GM & Harvey PH 1983: Energetic constraints on home-range size. American Naturalist 121: 120–132.10.1086/284043Search in Google Scholar

McLoughlin PD & Ferguson SH 2000: A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size. Ecoscience 7: 123–130.10.1080/11956860.2000.11682580Search in Google Scholar

Mikkola H 1983: Owls of Europe. Poyser, Calton.Search in Google Scholar

Mohr CO 1947: Table of equivalent populations of north american small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 37: 223–249.10.2307/2421652Search in Google Scholar

Newton I 1986: The Sparrowhawk. Calton, Poyser.Search in Google Scholar

Norberg RA 1970: Hunting technique of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus. Ornis Scandinavica 1: 51–64.10.2307/3676334Search in Google Scholar

Palmer DA 1986: Habitat selection, movements and activity of boreal and saw-whet owls. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.Search in Google Scholar

Pfeiffer T & Meyburg BU 2015: GPS tracking of red kites (Milvus milvus) reveals fledgling number is negatively correlated with home range size. Journal of Ornithology 156: 963–975. DOI: 10.1007/s10336-015-1230-5.10.1007/s10336-015-1230-5Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Powell RA 2000: Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators, 65–110. In: Boitani L & Fuller T (eds), Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York.Search in Google Scholar

Rodgers AR & Kie JG 2011: HRT: Home range tools for ArcGIS, A user’s manual. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Ontario.Search in Google Scholar

Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Beyer HL, Smith L & Kie JG 2007: HRT: Home tange tools for ArcGIS. Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario.Search in Google Scholar

Santangeli A, Hakkarainen H, Laaksonen T & Korpimäki E 2012: Home range size is determined by habitat composition but feeding rate by food availability in male Tengmalm’s owls. Animal Behaviour 83: 1115–1123. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.02.002.10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.02.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ & Gitzen RA 1999: Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 739–747.10.2307/3802664Search in Google Scholar

Seaman DE & Powell RA 1996: An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77: 2075–2085.10.2307/2265701Search in Google Scholar

Silverman BW 1986: Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.Search in Google Scholar

Sonerud GA, Solheim R & Jacobsen BV 1986: Homerange use and habitat selection during hunting in a male Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus. Fauna norvegica Series C, Cinclus 9: 100–106.Search in Google Scholar

Sorbi S 2003: Size and use of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus home range in the high Belgian Ardennes: Results from radio-tracking. Alauda 71: 215–220. (In French with English summary)Search in Google Scholar

White GC & Garrott RA 1990: Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, San Diego.Search in Google Scholar

Withey JC, Bloxton TD & Marzluff JM 2001: Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies, 43–70. In: Millspaugh JJ & Marzluff JM (eds), Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego.10.1016/B978-012497781-5/50004-9Search in Google Scholar

Worton BJ 1989: Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164–168.10.2307/1938423Search in Google Scholar

Zabel CJ, McKelvey K & Ward JP 1995: Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 73: 433–439.10.1139/z95-049Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo