Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T02:35:57.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure, dynamics, home range and activity pattern of mixed-species bird flocks in a montane alder-dominated secondary forest in Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Bent Otto Poulsen
Bent Otto Poulsen
Affiliation:
Division of Ornithology, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two mixed-species bird flocks were studied in a high-altitude humid secondary forest in the Andes of Ecuador. Birds were mist-netted and colour-ringed for individual identification. The flocks (A and B) were followed to record structure, dynamics, home range and activity pattern. All observations of the two flocks studied included members from all vertical levels, which is different from flocks of Amazonia. In two nucleus species, some individuals alternated between the flocks, a feature not previously reported. Various tanagers were loosely associated, joining and leaving flocks. Minimum home-range sizes of flocks A and B were 4.2 ha and 7.8 ha, respectively. Some individuals of two species used an area encompassing the home ranges of both flocks. Mean flock sizes in A and B were 21.7 and 44.7 individuals, whereas the mean numbers of species were 13.7 and 21.7, respectively. Number of species and individuals were high compared to even most lowland flocks. Altogether, mixed-species flocks in different habitats and at various latitudinal and altitudinal sites appear to have some features in common, but others are highly distinct. Compared to the great stability of Amazonian flocks, some high-altitude flocks of secondary forest in the Andes appear to be more dynamic and unstable.

Keywords

activity patternAndesdynamicshigh altitudehome rangemixed-species bird flocksstabilitystructure
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , May 1996 , pp. 333 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Bates, H. W. 1863. The naturalist on the River Amazon. Murray Press, London.Google Scholar
Belt, T. W. 1874. The naturalist in Nicaragua. Murray Press, London.Google Scholar
Brock, V. E. & Riffenburgh, R. H. 1960. Fish schooling: a possible factor in reducing predation. Journal du Conseil. Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 25:307–317.Google Scholar
Bushkirk, W. H., Powell, G. V. N., Wittenburger, J. F. & Powell, T. U. 1972. Interspecific bird flocks in tropical highland Panama. Auk 89:612–624.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. & Lack, E. 1985. A dictionary of birds. T. & A. D. Poyser, Calton.Google Scholar
Fjeldså, J. & Krabbe, N. 1990. Birds of the high Andes. Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen and Apollo Books, Svendborg.Google Scholar
Gwinner, E. 1975. Circadian and circannual rhythms in birds. Pp. 221–285 in Farner, D. S. & King, J. R. (eds). Avian biology, vol. 5. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hutto, R. L. 1987. A description of mixed-species insectivorous bird flocks in western Mexico. Condor 89:282–292.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D. W. & Henderson, D. G. 1977. Aspects of the behavior and ecology of mixed species bird flocks in Kashmir. Ibis 119:481–493.Google Scholar
Moynihan, M. 1962. The organization and probable evolution of some mixed species flocks of neotropical birds. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 143:1–140.Google Scholar
Moynihan, M. 1979. Geographic variation in social behavior and in adaptations to competition among Andean birds. Publications of the Nuitall Ornithological Club 18:89–147.Google Scholar
Munn, C. A. 1985. Permanent canopy and understory flocks in Amazonia: species composition and population density. Pp. 683–712 in Keast, A. & Morton, E. S. (eds). Neotropics: ecology, behavior, distribution and conservation. The Symposia of the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Munn, C. A. & Terborgh, J. W. 1979. Multi-species territoriality in neotropical foraging flocks. Condor 81:338–347.Google Scholar
Poulsen, B. O. In press. Relationships between frequency of mixed-species flocks, weather and insect activity in a montane cloud forest, Ecuador. Ibis.Google Scholar
Powell, G. V. N. 1979. Structure and dynamics of interspecific flocks in a neotropical mid-altitude forest. Auk 96:375–390.Google Scholar
Powell, G. V. N. 1985. Sociobiology and adaptive significance of interspecific foraging flocks in the ncotropics. Pp. 713–732 in Buckley, P. A., Foster, M. S., Morton, E. S., Ridgely, R. S. & Buckley, F. G. (eds). Neotropical ornithology. Ornithological monographs 36. Allen Press, Kansas.Google Scholar
Remsen, J. V. 1985. Community organization and ecology of birds in high altitude humid forest of the Bolivian Andes. Pp. 733–756 in Buckley, P. A., Foster, M. S., Morton, E. S., Ridgely, S. R. & Buckley, F. G. (eds). Neotropical ornithology. Ornithological monographs 36. Allen Press, Kansas.Google Scholar
Stotz, D. F. 1993. Geographic variation in species composition of mixed species flocks in lowland humid forests in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 38:61–75.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. A. 1984. The advantages of social foraging in Downy Woodpeckers. Animal Behavior 32:16–22.Google Scholar
Terborgh, J. 1990. Mixed flocks and polyspecific associations: costs and benefits of mixed groups to birds and monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 21:87–100.Google Scholar
Terborgh, J., Robinson, S. K., IIIParker, T. A., Munn, C. H. & Pierpont, N. 1990. Structure and organization of an Amazonian forest bird community. Ecological Monographs 60:213–238.Google Scholar
Ward, P. 1965. Feeding ecology of the Black-faced Dioch (Quelea quelea) in Nigeria. Ibis 107:173–214.Google Scholar