[
Alatalo RV, Eriksson DAG, Gustafsson L, Larsson K 1987: Exploitation competition influences the use of foraging sites by tits: experimental evidence. Ecology 68: 284–290. DOI:10.2307/1939259.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barbaro L, Blache S, Trochard G, Arlaud C, de Lacoste N, Kayser Y 2016: Hierarchical habitat selection by Eurasian pygmy owls Glaucidium passerinum in old-growth forests of the southern French Prealps. Journal of Ornithology 157: 333–342. DOI:10.1007/s10336-015-1285-3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Baroni D 2022: Cavity-use and spatial ecology of the Eurasian pygmy owl in the managed boreal forest. Doctoral Dissertation thesis, University of Turku.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL 2006: Ecology. Individuals, populations and communities, 4th edn. Blackwell, Boston.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Björklund H, Santangeli A, Blanchet FG, Huitu O, Lehtoranta H, Lindén H, Valkama J, Laaksonen T 2016: Intraguild predation and competition impacts on a subordinate predator. Oecologia 181: 257–269. DOI:10.1007/s00442-015-3523-z.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Börger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T 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.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Burgos G, Zuberogoitia I 2020: A telemetry study to discriminate between home range and territory size in Tawny Owls. Bioacoustics 29: 109–121. DOI:10.108 0/09524622.2018.1555717.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Campioni L, Delgado MM, Lourenço R, Bastianelli G, Fernández N, Penteriani V 2013: Individual and spatio-temporal variations in the home range behaviour of a long-lived, territorial species. Oecologia 172: 371–385. DOI:10.1007/s00442-012-2493-7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Case TJ, Gilpin ME 1974: Interference competition and niche theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71: 3073–3077. DOI:10.1073/pnas.71.8.3073.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dhondt AA 2012: Interspecific competition in birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom Don BAC (1983) Home range characteristics and correlates in tree squirrels. Mammal review 13:1 23–132. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1983.tb00273.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Flasskamp A 1994: The adaptive significance of avian mobbing V. An experimental test of the “move on” hypothesis. Ethology 96: 322–333. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb01020.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fretwell SD, Lucas HL 1969: On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19: 16–36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Galeotti P, Pavan G 1991: Individual recognition of male Tawny owls (Strix aluco) using spectrograms of their territorial calls. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 3: 113–126. DOI:10.1080/08927014.1991.9525378.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grand TC, Dill LM 1999: Predation risk, unequal competitors and the ideal free distribution. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1: 389–409.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grava T, Mathevon N, Place E, Balluet P 2008: Individual acoustic monitoring of the European Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo). Ibis 150: 279–287. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00776.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hakkarainen H, Korpimäki E 1996: Competitive and predatory interactions among raptors: An observational and experimental study. Ecology 77: 1134–1142. DOI:10.2307/2265582.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harestad AS, Bunnel FL 1979: Home range and body weight—A reevaluation. Ecology 60: 389–402.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hayne DW 1949: Calculation of size of home range. Journal of Mammalogy 30: 1–18.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Choi WS, Sung HC, Park JC, Kim WY 2020: A first study on home range and habitat characteristics of a tawny owl breeding pair: a case study using direct tracking in the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 13: 169–174. DOI:10.1016/j.japb.2020.03.003.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jaksić FM 1982: Inadequacy of activity time as a niche difference: the case of diurnal and nocturnal raptors. Oecologia 52: 171–175. DOI:10.1007/BF00363832.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kajtoch Ł, Matysek M, Figarski T 2016: Spatio-temporal patterns of owl territories in fragmented forests are affected by a top predator (Ural owl). Annales Zoologici Fennici 53: 165–174. DOI:10.5735/086.053.0405.
]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 Univ Oul A 118 Biol 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.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Korpimaki E, Norrdahl K 1989: Predation of Tengmalm’s owls: numerical responses, functional responses and dampening impact on population fluctuations of microtines. Oikos 54: 154–164. DOI:10.2307/3565261
]Search 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:e0177314. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0177314.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Tulis F, Stehlíková Sovadinová S, Korpimäki E 2024: Survival rates and causes of death in Tengmalm’s owl offspring during the post-fledging dependence period in Central and North Europe. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 12: 1388643. DOI:10.3389/fevo.2024.1388643.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kouba M, Bartoš L, Tulis F, Ševčík M, Sovadinová S, Bušina T, Janouš M, Kouba P, Bartošová J, Hongisto K, Korpimäki E 2023: Post-fledging survival of Tengmalm’s owl offspring in boreal forests: Interactive effects of varying dynamics of main prey and habitat composition. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 11: 115–1622. DOI:10.3389/fevo.2023.1151622.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kouba M, Tomášek V 2018: Size of home range of Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) males during breeding season assessed by radio-telemetry in the Jizera Mountains, Czechia. Slovak Raptor Journal 12:1–7. DOI:10.2478/srj-2018-0004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lang JM, Benbow ME 2013: Species interactions and competition. Nature Education Knowledge 4:8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lourenço R, Penteriani V, Rabaça JE, Korpimäki E 2014: Lethal interactions among vertebrate top predators: a review of concepts, assumptions and terminology. Biological Reviews 89: 270–283. DOI:10.111brv.12054
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mikkola H 1983: Owls of Europe. Poyser, Calton.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mikusek R, Kloubec B, Obuch J 2001: Diet of the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) in eastern Central Europe. Buteo 12: 47–60.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mohr CO 1947: Table of equivalent populations of north american small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 37: 223–249.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Morosinotto C, Villers A, Thomson RL, Varjonen R, Korpimaki E 2017: Competitors and predators alter settlement patterns and reproductive success of an intraguild prey. Ecological Monographs 87: 4–20. DOI:10.1002/ecm.1238.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nilsson IN 1984: Prey weight, food overlap, and reproductive output of potentially competing Long-eared and Tawny Owls. Ornis Scandinavica: 176–182. DOI:10.2307/3675959.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Obuch J 2001: Using marked differences from the mean (MDFM) method for evaluation of contingency tables. Buteo 12: 37–46.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Obuch J 2011: Spatial and temporal diversity of the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco). Raptor Journal 5: 1–120. DOI:10.2478/v10262-012-0057-8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Obuch J 2021: Spatial and temporal changes in the diet composition of the Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) in Slovakia comparing three historical periods. Raptor Journal 15: 17–55. DOI:10.2478/srj-2021-0002.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ottaviani D, Cairns SC, Oliverio M, Boitani L 2006 Body mass as a predictive variable of home‐range size among Italian mammals and birds. Journal of Zoology 269: 317–330. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00060.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pačenovský S, Šotnár K 2010: Notes on the reproduction, breeding biology and ethology of the Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) in Slovakia. Raptor Journal 4: 49–81. DOI:10.2478/v10262-012-0046-y.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pepłowska-Marczak 2019: Pygmy owl Glaucidium passerinum and Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus in Kampinos Forest: an analysis of factors which condition the occurrence of both species. World Scientific News: 99–115.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pianka ER 1973: The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 53–74.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD 1989: The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 297–330.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ribble DO, Stanley S 1998 Home ranges and social organization of syntopic Peromyscus boylii and P. truei. Journal of Mammalogy 79: 932–941. DOI:10.2307/1383101.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Beyer HL, Smith L, Kie JG 2007: HRT: Home Range Tools for ArcGIS. Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
]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
[
Rothgänger A 2023: Spatio-temporal ecology and habitat requirements of the Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum). Doctoral Dissertation thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saiful AA, Idris AH, Rashid YN, Tamura N, Hayashi F 2001: Home range size of sympatric squirrel species inhabiting a lowland dipterocarp Forest in Malaysia. Biotropica 33:3 46–351. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2001.tb00186.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sarà M, Milazzo A, Falletta W, Bellia E 2005: Exploitation competition between hole-nesters (Muscardinus avellanarius, Mammalia and Parus caeruleus, Aves) in Mediterranean woodlands. Journal of Zoology 265: 347–357. DOI:10.1017/S095283690500645X.
]Search 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.
]Search 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. DOI:10.2307/2265701.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sergio F, Hiraldo F 2008: Intraguild predation in raptor assemblages: a review. Ibis 150: 132–145. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00786.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sergio F, Marchesi L, Pedrini P 2003: Spatial refugia and the coexistence of a diurnal raptor with its intraguild owl predator. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 232–245. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00693.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sergio F, Marchesi L, Pedrini P, Penteriani V 2007: Coexistence of a generalist owl with its intraguild predator: distance-sensitive or habitat-mediated avoidance? Animal Behaviour 74: 1607–1616. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.022.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schoener TW 1983: Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122: 240–285. DOI:10.1086/284133.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Silverman BW 1986: Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Solonen T 2011: Impact of dominant predators on territory occupancy and reproduction of subdominant ones within a guild of birds of prey. The Open Ornithology Journal 4:23–29. DOI:10.2174/1874453201104010023
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sonerud GA, Solheim R, Jacobsen BV 1986: Home-range 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
[
Stehlíková Sovadinová S, Hertl I, Körber A, Kouba M 2025: Space use during the breeding season of three different forest-dwelling owl species in an area of sympatry: A case study of male hunting home range sizes and overlaps. Journal of Ornithology. DOI:10.1007/s10336-025-02278-0.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Strøm H, Sonerud GA 2001: Home range and habitat selection in the Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum. Ornis Fennica 78:145–158.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Suhonen J, Halonen M, Mappes T, Korpimäki E 2007: Interspecific competition limits larders of pygmy owls Glaucidium passerinum. Journal of Avian Biology 38: 630–634. DOI:10.1111/j.2007.0908-8857.03960.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sunde P, Bolstad MS, Desfor KB 2003: Diurnal exposure as a risk sensitive behaviour in tawny owls Strix aluco? Journal of Avian Biology 34: 409–418. DOI:10.1111/j.0908-8857.2003.03105.x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Šotnár K, Pačenovský S, Obuch J 2015: On the food of the Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) in Slovakia. Slovak Raptor Journal 9: 115–126. DOI:10.1515/srj-2015-0009.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Withey JC, Bloxton TD, Marzluff JM 2001: Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies. In: JJ Millspaugh, JM Marzluff, eds. Radio tracking and animal populations. San Diego. Academic Press,
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Worton BJ 1989: Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164–168.
]Search in Google Scholar
Orcid profile