Heterospecific competition and attraction in grassland bird communities differ with habitat quality

Abstract

The behavioral basis for habitat selection has been intensively studied, but comparatively little attention has been paid to how the resultant species assemblages are formed or affected. Further, how habitat quality interacts with behavior during habitat selection needs greater exploration. We sought to identify some of the behavioral interactions influencing the development of bird assemblages in agricultural habitats, which we consider a structurally simple model system. We performed point counts in non-cultivated meadows, intensive agriculture, and non-intensive agriculture areas in the 2011 and 2012 breeding seasons in which we particularly focussed on Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetus gramineus). Using presence-absence matrices and EcoSim software on 2011 census data, we determined where competition was likely to occur, and which species were competing. In 2012, we experimentally tested these relationships by introducing artificial competitors onto sites. We implemented a before-after control-impact study by comparing presence-absence data from 2011 to 2012 and using multinomial logistic regression. We found grassland bird assemblages are structured by interspecific competition or attraction. The experimental introduction of Grasshopper Sparrows resulted in several presence/absence changes, which differed based on habitat quality, by conspecifics and four heterospecifics (especially Bobolinks). We speculate that the response to competitors is actually determined by the relative quality of each habitat type for each species.

Abbreviations

BACI:

before-after control-impact

CONT:

control

C-score:

checkerboard score

DF:

degrees of freedom

FISP:

Field Sparrow decoy and playback

GRSP:

Grasshopper Sparrow decoy and playback

IAG:

intensive agriculture

NAG:

non-intensive agriculture

NCM:

non-cultivated meadow

obs:

observed matrices

sim:

simulated matrices

References

  1. Ahlering, M.A. and J. Faaborg. 2006. Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: If you build it, will they come? Auk 123: 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlering, M.A., D.H. Johnson and J. Faaborg. 2006. Conspecific attraction in a grassland bird, the Baird’s Sparrow. J. Field Ornithol. 77: 365–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahlering, M.A., D. Arlt, M.G. Betts, R.J. Fletcher Jr., J.J. Nocera and M.P. Ward. 2010. Research needs and recommendations for the use of conspecific attraction – Methods in the conservation of migratory songbirds. Condor 112: 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Askins, R.A. 1993. Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Curr. Ornithol. 11: 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  5. Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s Birds: Lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press. New Haven, CT, USA.

  6. Betts, M.G., A.S. Hadley, N. Rodenhouse and J.J. Nocera. 2008. Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 275: 2257–2263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Betts, M.G., J.J. Nocera and A.S. Hadley. 2010. Settlement in novel habitats induced by social information may disrupt community structure. Condor 112: 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boren, J.C., D.M. Engle and R.E. Masters. 1997. Vegetation cover type and avian species changes on landscapes within a wildland-urban interface. Ecol. Model.103: 251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruno, J.F., J.J. Stachowicz and M.D. Bertness. 2003. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carey, M., D.E. Burhans and D.A. Nelson. 2008. Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cavitt, J.F. and C.A. Haas. 2000. Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Connor, E.F. and D. Simberloff. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60: 1132–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Conover, R.R., S.J. Dinsmore and J.W. Burger. 2011. Effects of conservation practices on bird nest density and survival in intensive agriculture. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 141: 126–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. COSSARO. 2010. COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). 1–7.

  15. COSSARO. 2011. COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna). 1–15.

  16. Elton, C. 1946. Competition and the structure of ecological communities. J. Anim. Ecol. 15: 54–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Entsminger, G.L. 2012. EcoSim Professional: Null modeling software for ecologists, Version 1. Acquired Intelligence Inc., Kesey-Bear, & Pinyon Publishing. Montrose, CO. http://www.garyentsminger.com/ecosim/index.htm

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fletcher, R.J. Jr. 2006. Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat. 168: 207–219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fletcher, R.J. Jr. 2007. Species interactions and population density mediate the use of social cues for habitat selection. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 598–606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Forsman, J.T., J.T. Seppänen and M. Mönkkönen. 2002. Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a potential competitor. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 269: 1619–1623.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gotelli, N.J. 2000. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81: 2606–2621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hardin, G. 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131: 1292–1297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Heckenlively, D.B. 1976. Cadence of Field Sparrow songs. Wilson Bull. 88: 588–602.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jaster, L.A., W.E. Jensen and W.E. Lanyon. 2012. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson, L.S. 1998. House Wren (Troglodytes aedon). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jones, S.L. and J.E. Cornely. 2002. Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martin, S.G. and T.A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McGuire, S.L. 2014. Habitat use and community structure of grassland birds in southern Ontario agro-ecosystems. Master’s Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, ON. viii +120 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Miller, G.T. Jr. and D. Hackett. 2011. Living in the Environment (2ndCanadian ed.). Nelson Education Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mönkkönen, M., P. Helle and K. Soppela. 1990. Numerical and behavioral responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): Heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communities. Oecologia 85: 218–225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Nocera, J.J. and M.G. Betts. 2010. The role of social information in avian habitat selection. Condor 112: 222–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nocera, J.J., G.J. Forbes and L.-A. Giraldeau. 2006. Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 273: 349–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nocera, J.J., G.J. Forbes and L.-A. Giraldeau. 2009. Aggregations from using inadvertent social information: a form of ideal habitat selection. Ecography 32: 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Parejo, D., E. Danchin and J.M. Aviles. 2004. The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behav. Ecol. 16: 96–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pinheiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar and the R Development Core Team. 2013. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1–109.

  36. Proppe, D.S. and G. Ritchison. 2008. Use and possible functions of the primary and sustained songs of male Grasshopper Sparrows. Am. Midl. Nat. 160: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/

  38. Ray C., M. Gilpin and A.T. Smith. 1991. The effect of conspecific attraction on metapopulation dynamics. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roughgarden, J. 1983. Competition and theory in community ecology. Am. Nat. 122: 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Seppänen, J.-T., J.T. Forsman, M. Mönkkönen and R.L. Thomson. 2007. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 88: 1622–1633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sinclair, A.R.E. 1991. Science and the practice of wildlife management. J. Wildlife Manage. 55: 767–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Starkweather, J. and A.K. Moske. 2011. “Multinomial Logistic Regression.” Retrieved from: http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/Jon/ Benchmarks/MLR_JDS_Aug2011.pdf

  43. Strong, D. Jr., L. Szyska and D. Simberloff. 1979. Tests of community-wide character displacement against null hypotheses. Evolution 33: 897–913.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Styring, A.R., R. Ragai, J. Unggang, R. Stuebing, P. Hosner and F.H. Sheldon. 2011. Bird community assembly in Bornean industrial tree plantations: Effect of forest age and structure. Forest Ecol. Manage. 261: 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Terborgh, J. 1985. Habitat selection in Amazonian birds. In: M.L. Cody (ed.), Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 311–338.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Venables, W.N. and B.D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S (4th Edition). Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). In: A. Poole (ed.), Birds N Am Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ward, M.P. and S. Schlossberg. 2004. Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv. Biol. 18: 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. L. McGuire.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGuire, S.L., Nocera, J.J. Heterospecific competition and attraction in grassland bird communities differ with habitat quality. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 16, 206–214 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2015.16.2.8

Download citation

Keywords

  • BACI
  • Community ecology
  • Conspecific attraction
  • Grassland birds