Territory occupancy and parental quality as proxies for spatial prioritization of conservation areas

PLoS One. 2014 May 16;9(5):e97679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097679. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

In order to maximize their fitness, individuals aim at choosing territories offering the most appropriate combination of resources. As population size fluctuates in time, the frequency of breeding territory occupancy reflects territory quality. We investigated the relationships between the frequency of territory occupancy (2002-2009) vs. habitat characteristics, prey abundance, reproductive success and parental traits in hoopoes Upupa epops L., with the objective to define proxies for the delineation of conservation priority areas. We predicted that the distribution of phenotypes is despotic and sought for phenotypic characteristics expressing dominance. Our findings support the hypothesis of a despotic distribution. Territory selection was non-random: frequently occupied territories were settled earlier in the season and yielded higher annual reproductive success, but the frequency of territory occupancy could not be related to any habitat characteristics. Males found in frequently occupied territories showed traits expressing dominance (i.e. larger body size and mass, and older age). In contrast, morphological traits of females were not related to the frequency of territory occupancy, suggesting that territory selection and maintenance were essentially a male's task. Settlement time in spring, reproductive success achieved in a given territory, as well as phenotypic traits and age of male territory holders reflected territory quality, providing good proxies for assessing priority areas for conservation management.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Birds / physiology*
  • Conservation of Natural Resources
  • Ecosystem*
  • Female
  • Male
  • Reproduction
  • Territoriality*

Grants and funding

The study has been jointly funded by the Division of Conservation Biology (University of Bern) and the Swiss Ornithological Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.