Space use of suburban pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus): insights on the relationship between home range, core areas, and territory
- 190 Downloads
Home range, territory, and core areas are concepts that have been used to describe a species’ space use. However, little research has been done to understand potential spatial relationships between them. While the relative importance of different areas of the home range has been addressed with utilization distributions, there is a lack of such analysis for territories. We mapped the locations of territorial advertisements (calls and drumming) of the pileated woodpecker in suburban areas to determine a more objective, behavior-based approach to define areas of importance within territories, which we called ‘highly-defended areas’. We then analyzed the relationship between such highly-defended areas and a bird’s home range and territory. On average, territories represented 69.6 ± 0.06% (mean ± SE) of a woodpecker’s home range, and highly-defended areas were 34.3 ± 0.03% of their home range. Highly-defended areas objectively determined the portion of the territory that was important for fitness. For example, they contained a significant proportion of the nests and roost sites of pileated woodpeckers, which are important for reproduction and survivorship. This approach could be useful to further incorporate behavior in the study of the spatial ecology of species.
KeywordsBehavior Urban ecology Territoriality Cavity-nesting birds Spatial overlap
We thank Jon Bakker, Joshua J. Lawler, Martin G. Raphael, Kaeli Swift, Lauren Walker, Jack DeLap, Carol Bogezi, and Michael Heimbuch for their invaluable comments at different stages of the development of this manuscript. We thank Jim Ladd, Kim Holt, April Gale-Seixeiro, Sharon Shriver, Dale Griffith, and Jim Rettig for kindly allowing us to trap pileated woodpeckers on their property. We thank Sean Williams, Laura Farwell, Sara Wang, Lauren Walker, Ross Forbush, Ila Palmquist, Jamie Granger, Kristen Richardson, Frank Stevick, Chase O’Neil, Jack DeLap, Janice Bragg, and many others for their assistance in the field. We also thank Sean Williams, Laura Farwell, Peter Hodum, and Nathalie Hamel who helped with transportation to conduct the fieldwork. Finally, we thank Geir A. Sonerud, Marko Mägi, and Indrikis Krams for their comments which greatly improved this paper.
Author contribution statement
Both authors conceived the idea, and designed the research. JAT collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the paper with edits from JMM.
JAT conducted this research while on Fulbright-Conicyt scholarship. The field equipment used on this research was partially funded by a School of Environmental and Forest Sciences grant and the Student Technology Fee grant.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Waddell P, Handcock M (2006) Modeling interactions among urban development, land-cover change, and bird diversity. NSF Final Report BE/CNH 0120024Google Scholar
- Aubry KB, Raley CM (2002) The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA, pp257–274Google Scholar
- Beyer HL (2012) Geospatial modelling environment (Version 0.7. 2.1). http://www.spatialecology.com/gme
- Bonar RL (2001) Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta foothills. PhD Dissertation, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169Google Scholar
- Buehler DA, Fraser JD, Fuller MR et al (1995) Captive and field-tested radio transmitter attachments for bald eagles. J Field Ornithol 66:173–180Google Scholar
- Ferry C, Frochot B, Leruth Y (1981) Territory and home range of the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) and some other passerines, assessed and compared by mapping and capture–recapture. In: Ralph CJ, Scott, JM (eds) Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6. The Cooper Ornithological Socitey, Allen Press Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, pp 119–120Google Scholar
- Franklin JF, Dyrness CT (1988) Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
- Kilham L (1979) Courtship and the pair-bond of pileated woodpeckers. Auk 96:587–594Google Scholar
- Powell RA (2000) Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 65–110Google Scholar
- Renken RB, Wiggers EP (1993) Habitat characteristics related to pileated woodpecker densities in Missouri. Wilson Bull 105:77–83Google Scholar
- Seaman DE, Powell RA (1990) Identifying patterns and intensity of home range use. Bears: Their Biol Manag 8:243–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/3872925
- QGIS Development Team (2015) QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial FoundationGoogle Scholar
- York DL, Davis JE Jr, Cummings JL, Wilson EA (1998) Pileated woodpecker capture using a mist net and taped call. North Am Bird Bander 23:81–82Google Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar