» Articles » PMID: 24516615

Weather Conditions Drive Dynamic Habitat Selection in a Generalist Predator

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2014 Feb 12
PMID 24516615
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Despite the dynamic nature of habitat selection, temporal variation as arising from factors such as weather are rarely quantified in species-habitat relationships. We analysed habitat use and selection (use/availability) of foraging, radio-tagged little owls (Athene noctua), a nocturnal, year-round resident generalist predator, to see how this varied as a function of weather, season and availability. Use of the two most frequently used land cover types, gardens/buildings and cultivated fields varied more than 3-fold as a simple function of season and weather through linear effects of wind and quadratic effects of temperature. Even when controlling for the temporal context, both land cover types were used more evenly than predicted from variation in availability (functional response in habitat selection). Use of two other land cover categories (pastures and moist areas) increased linearly with temperature and was proportional to their availability. The study shows that habitat selection by generalist foragers may be highly dependent on temporal variables such as weather, probably because such foragers switch between weather dependent feeding opportunities offered by different land cover types. An opportunistic foraging strategy in a landscape with erratically appearing feeding opportunities in different land cover types, may possibly also explain decreasing selection of the two most frequently used land cover types with increasing availability.

Citing Articles

Coping with drought? The hidden microhabitat selection and underground movements of amphisbaenians under summer drought conditions.

Martin J, Rodriguez-Ruiz G, Cuervo J Curr Zool. 2024; 70(5):647-658.

PMID: 39463696 PMC: 11502144. DOI: 10.1093/cz/zoad034.


Juvenile survival of little owls decreases with snow cover.

Perrig M, Oppel S, Tschumi M, Keil H, Naef-Daenzer B, Gruebler M Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(5):e11379.

PMID: 38770120 PMC: 11103642. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.11379.


Generalist bird exhibits site-dependent resource selection.

Cady S, Davis C, Fuhlendorf S, Scholtz R, Uden D, Twidwell D Ecol Evol. 2021; 11(18):12714-12727.

PMID: 34594533 PMC: 8462173. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8016.


Fine-scale movement patterns and habitat selection of little owls (Athene noctua) from two declining populations.

Mayer M, Salek M, Fox A, Juhl Lindhoj F, Jacobsen L, Sunde P PLoS One. 2021; 16(9):e0256608.

PMID: 34570774 PMC: 8476024. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256608.


Impact of land cover and landfills on the breeding effect and nest occupancy of the white stork in Poland.

Bialas J, Dylewski L, Dylik A, Janiszewski T, Kaluga I, Krolak T Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):7279.

PMID: 33790344 PMC: 8012577. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86529-z.


References
1.
Cresswell W, Lind J, Quinn J . Predator-hunting success and prey vulnerability: quantifying the spatial scale over which lethal and non-lethal effects of predation occur. J Anim Ecol. 2010; 79(3):556-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01671.x. View

2.
McLoughlin P, Morris D, Fortin D, Vander Wal E, Contasti A . Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions. J Anim Ecol. 2009; 79(1):4-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01613.x. View

3.
Lele S, Merrill E, Keim J, Boyce M . Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol. 2014; 82(6):1183-91. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12141. View

4.
Beyer H, Haydon D, Morales J, Frair J, Hebblewhite M, Mitchell M . The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability designs. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010; 365(1550):2245-54. PMC: 2894962. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0083. View

5.
Godvik I, Loe L, Vik J, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Mysterud A . Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology. 2009; 90(3):699-710. DOI: 10.1890/08-0576.1. View