AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Avian Research Article
PDF (1.5 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research | Open Access

Diet and habitat affinities in six raptor species in India

Satish Pande1,2, Reuven Yosef2,3 ( ), Federico Morelli4, Rajkumar Pawar1, Ram Mone1
ELA Foundation, C-9 Bhosale Park, Sahakarnagr, Pune 411009, India
Department of Environmental Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India
Ben Gurion University of the Negev-Eilat Campus, P. O. Box 272, 88000 Eilat, Israel
Department of Applied Geoinformatics and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycká 129, 165 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic
Show Author Information

Abstract

Background

Sympatric species adapt to, and temporally or geographically segregate access to similar limiting factors.

Methods

We compared nesting habitat and diet affinities of six raptor species in central India between the years 2006-2015.

Results

A large composition of reptiles in the diet was characteristic for Circaetus gallicus, Spilornis cheela and Elanus caeruleus, while Aquila fasciata, Falco chicquera and Nisaetus cirrhatus show a higher proportion of birds. Species with greatest similarity of diet were C. gallicus and S. cheela. Considering the environmental characterization of areas where raptors built the nest, some species were ecologically closer than others. N. cirrhatus and S. cheela were related to the presence of water bodies, dry deciduous forest and evergreen forests, while E. caeruleus and C. gallicus preferred more open habitats. A. fasciata bred either on cliffs or trees, F. chicquera on trees or mobile towers, and the other four species built their nests exclusively in trees.

Conclusions

We conclude that although there was overlap in diet and nesting ecology for a number of species, the geographical separation likely limits competition for resources.

Keywords

DietNiche overlapRaptor speciesBreeding areaResource partitioning

References

 

Allan JR, Venter O, Maxwell S, Bertzky B, Jones K, Shi Y, Watson JEM. Recent increases in human pressure and forest loss threaten many Natural World Heritage Sites. Biol Conserv. 2017;206:47-55.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Baladron AV, Bo MS, Bechard MJ, Malizia AI. Relative abundance, habitat use, and seasonal variability of raptor assemblages in the flooding Pampas of Argentina. J Raptor Res. 2017;51:38-49.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Bildstein KL. Migrating raptors of the world—their ecology and conservation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2006.
 
BirdLife International. Falco chicquera. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016. 2016: eT22727778A94961899. Downloaded on 23 December 2017.
 

Bonaparte EB, Cockle KL. Nest niche overlap among the endangered Vinaceous-breasted Parrot (Amazona vinacea) and sympatric cavity-using birds, mammals, and social insects in the subtropical Atlantic Forest, Argentina. Condor. 2017;119:58-72.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Butet A, Michel N, Rantier Y, Comor V, Hubert-Moy L, Nabucet J, Delettre Y. Responses of common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and Eurasian Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) to land use changes in agricultural landscapes of Western France. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2010;138:152-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
 
De Cáceres M, Jansen F. "Indicspecies" R Package—Functions to assess the strength and significance of relationship of species site group associations. 2016.
 

De Caceres M, Sol D, Lapiedra O, Legendre P. A framework for estimating niche metrics using the resemblance between qualitative resources. Oikos. 2011;120:1341-50.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Divisek J, Zeleny D, Culek M, Stastny K. Natural habitats matter: determinants of spatial pattern in the composition of animal assemblages of the Czech Republic. Acta Oecol. 2014;59:7-17.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Ferrer M. The Spanish imperial eagle. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2001.
Google Scholar
 
Gotelli N, Hart E, Ellison A. Package "EcoSimR"—Null model analysis for ecological data. R Package. 2015.
 

Hakkarainen H, Mykrä S, Kurki S, Tornberg R, Jungell S. Competitive interactions among raptors in boreal forests. Oecologia. 2004;141:420-4.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Jaksic FM, Braker HE. Food-niche relationships and guild structure of diurnal birds of prey:competition versus opportunism. Can J Zool. 1983;61:2230-41.
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Janžekovi F, Novak T. PCA—a powerful method for analyze ecological niches. In: Sanguansat P, editor. Principal component analysis—multidisciplinary applications. Rijeka: InTech; 2012. p. 212.https://doi.org/10.5772/38538
Crossref
 

Jiménez B, Merino R, Abad E, Rivera J, Olie K. Evaluation of organochlorine compounds (PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs and DDTs) in two raptor species inhabiting a mediterranean island in Spain. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2007;1:61-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Kempe S, Dirks K. Layla Lakes, Saudi Arabia: the world-wide largest lacustrine gypsum tufas. Acta Carsol. 2008;37:7-14.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Lima SL, Dill LM. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool. 1990;68:619-40.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Lovari S, Pokheral CP, Jnawali SR, Fusani L, Ferretti F. Coexistence of the tiger and the common leopard in a prey-rich area: the role of prey partitioning. J Zool. 2015;295:122-31.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Magurran A. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004.
 
Naoroji R. Birds of prey of the Indian subcontinent. London: Christopher Helm; 2006. p. 692.
 

Norris K, Pain DJ. Conserving bird biodiversity general principles and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
Crossref
 

Orians GH, Soulé ME. Whither conservation biology research? Conserv Biol. 2001;15:1187-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Oro D, Pérez-Rodríguez A, Martínez-Vilalta A, Bertolero A, Vidal F, Genovart M. Interference competition in a threatened seabird community: a paradox for a successful conservation. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:1830-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Pande SA, Pawashe A, Mahajan M, Mahabal A, Joglekar C, Yosef R. Breeding biology, nesting habitat, and diet of the Rock Eagle Owl (Bubo bengalensis). J Raptor Res. 2011;45:211-9.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Pande SA, Zduniak P, Yosef R. Nest occupancy and reproductive success of a subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon, The Black Shaheen (Falco peregrinus peregrinator) in Western India. J Raptor Res. 2017;51:470-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Development Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Development Core Team; 2017.
 

Rebollo S, Martínez-Hesterkamp S, García-Salgado G, Pérez-Camacho L, Fernández-Pereira JM, Jenness J. Spatial relationships and mechanisms of coexistence between dominant and subordinate top predators. J Avian Biol. 2017;48:1226-37.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Restani M. Resource partitioning among three Buteo species in the Centennial Valley, Montana. Condor. 1991;93:1007-10.
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Roychowdhury K, Jones S, Arrowsmith C. Assessing the utility of DMSP/OLS night-time images for characterizing Indian urbanization. Shanghai Urban Remote Sens Event Joint. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1109/URS.2009.5137620.
Crossref
 

Sanchez-Zapata JA, Carrete M, Gravilov A, Sklyarenko S, Ceballos O, Donazar JA, Hiraldo F. Land use changes and raptor conservation in steppe habitats of Eastern Kazakhastan. Biol Conserv. 2003;111:71-7.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Sarà M, Mascara R, Lopez-Lopez P. Understanding the coexistence of competing raptors by Markov chain analysis enhances conservation of vulnerable species. J Zool. 2016;299:163-71.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Schoenert W. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science. 1974;185:27-39.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Sergio F, Blas J, Forero M, Fernández N, Donázar JA, Hiraldo F. Preservation of wide-ranging top predators by site-protection: black and red kites in Doñana National Park. Biol Conserv. 2005;125:11-21.
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Ştefănescu MD, Olaru ML, Babalean FA. Habitat niche overlap of raptors assemblage in the south of Oltenia region (community level analysis). Nat Montenegrina. 2013;12:387-94.
Google Scholar
 
Tikader BK, Bastawade DB. Fauna of India: scorpions, Scorpionidae, Arachnida, vol. 3. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India; 1983.
 

Tikader BK, Sharma RC. Handbook of Indian lizards. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India; 1992.
 

White MJ. Segregation and diversity measures in population distribution. Popul Index. 1986;52:198-221.
Crossref Google Scholar
Avian Research
Volume 9 Issue 1,
January 2018
Article number: 36
DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0129-2
Cite this article:
Pande S, Yosef R, Morelli F, et al. Diet and habitat affinities in six raptor species in India. Avian Research, 2018, 9(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-018-0129-2

588

Views

16

Downloads

11

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

10

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 21 April 2018
Accepted: 22 October 2018
Published: 29 October 2018
© The Author(s) 2018.

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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Return