Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Emu Emu Society
Journal of BirdLife Australia
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > MU > MU05020
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 106(2)

Habitat selection in two Australasian treecreepers: what cues should they use?

Veronica A. J. Doerr A B C D , Erik D. Doerr A B C and Stephen H. Jenkins A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Program in Ecology, Evolution & Conservation Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA.

B School of Botany & Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.

C Present address: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, GPO Box 284, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: veronica.doerr@csiro.au

Emu 106(2) 93-103 https://doi.org/10.1071/MU05020
Submitted: 16 May 2005  Accepted: 28 February 2006   Published: 19 May 2006

Abstract

When habitats differ in quality, individuals may attempt to maximise fitness through habitat selection. However, complete tests of habitat selection are rare, in part because many studies fail to quantify fitness consequences of habitat choice. We studied habitat selection of Australasian treecreepers (Passeriformes: Climacteridae) in temperate eucalypt woodland by examining the influence of habitat characteristics and confounding factors on annual reproductive success. In the pair-breeding White-throated Treecreeper (Cormobates leucophaeus), older females and territories with fewer stumps and less woody debris produced more young, possibly because these habitat characteristics lead to reduced conflict with Brown Treecreepers (Climacteris picumnus). In the cooperatively breeding Brown Treecreeper, larger groups and territories with lower densities of shrub, moderate levels of ground cover, and greater amounts of foraging substrate produced more fledglings, whereas territories with greater invertebrate biomass produced more independent young. Predicted annual reproductive success in the best territory was up to two offspring more than predicted success in the worst territory; thus, treecreepers would benefit from selecting good quality habitat. However, complete tests of habitat selection need to evaluate whether dispersers actively sample multiple habitats and choose the best available, and thus whether individual-level processes determine large-scale patterns of distribution and abundance. These results also suggest that current conservation efforts to exclude grazing from remnant patches of eucalypt woodland may be inappropriate if not used in conjunction with other management actions, because such exclusion may dramatically increase shrub density and ground cover. Alternative management tools need to be investigated that will maintain a mosaic of microhabitat types and thus protect the eucalypt woodland ecosystem, not just a few of its species.


Acknowledgments

Many thanks to our field assistants: S. Flaxman, L. Gilson, K. Gordon, J. Keramaty, N. Spang, and especially L. Yang. S. Dennis helped with removing invertebrates from the traps. Thanks also go to Ann Cowling of the Statistical Consulting Unit of the Australian National University for suggesting the analytical approach. We thank G. Luck, G. Hoelzer and anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments on the manuscript. Animal ethics approval and scientific permits were granted by the University of Nevada-Reno, Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, and State Forests of New South Wales. This research was supported by grants to V. A. J. Doerr from The National Geographic Society, The American Museum of Natural History, The American Ornithologists’ Union, The Explorers Club, Sigma Xi, The Animal Behavior Society, and the University of Nevada-Reno.


References

Anderson, D. R. , Burnham, K. P. , Gould, W. R. , and Cherry, S. (2001). Concerns about finding effects that are actually spurious. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 311–316.
Burnham K. P., and Anderson D. R. (1998). ‘Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)

Clark, R. G. , and Shutler, D. (1999). Avian habitat selection: pattern from process in nest-site use by ducks? Ecology 80, 272–287.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Clutton-Brock T. H. (Ed.) (1988). ‘Reproductive Success.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)

Cockburn, A. (1998). Evolution of helping behavior in cooperatively breeding birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29, 141–177.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Cody M. L. (Ed.) (1985). ‘Habitat Selection in Birds.’ (Academic Press: London.)

Cooper, C. B. , and Walters, J. R. (2002). Independent effects of woodland loss and fragmentation on Brown Treecreeper distribution. Biological Conservation 105, 1–10.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Doerr E. D. (2004). A comparative approach to cooperative breeding: demography, helping behavior, and population genetics of Australasian treecreepers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV.

Doerr, E. D. , and Doerr, V. A. J. (2005). Dispersal range analysis: quantifying individual variation in dispersal behaviour. Oecologia 142, 1–10.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Doerr V. A. J. (2003). Alternative dispersal tactics in Australasian treecreepers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV.

Emlen S. T. (1997). Predicting family dynamics in social vertebrates. In ‘Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach’. (Eds J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies.) pp. 228–253. (Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK.)

Emlen, S. T. , and Wrege, P. (1991). Breeding biology of white-fronted bee-eaters at Nakurus: the influence of helpers on breeder fitness. Journal of Animal Ecology 60, 309–326.
Garnett S. T., and Crowley G. M. (2000). ‘The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000.’ (Environment Australia: Canberra.)

Guisan, A. , and Zimmermann, N. E. (2000). Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135, 147–186.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Higgins P. J., Peter J. M., and Steele W. K. (Eds) (2001). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)

Holmes, R. T. , Marra, P. P. , and Sherry, T. W. (1996). Habitat-specific demography of breeding black-throated blue warblers (Dendroica caerulescens): implications for population dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 65, 183–195.
Krebs C. J. (1994). ‘Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance.’ (Harper Collins: New York.)

Luck, G. W. (2002). Determining habitat quality for the cooperatively breeding Rufous Treecreeper Climacteris rufa. Austral Ecology 27, 229–237.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Philippi T. E. (1993). Multiple regression: herbivory. In ‘Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments’. (Eds S. M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch.) pp. 183–210. (Chapman and Hall: New York.)

Reed, J. M. , and Dobson, A. P. (1993). Behavioural constraints and conservation biology: conspecific attraction and recruitment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 253–256.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Reid J. R. W. (1999). ‘Threatened and Declining Birds in the New South Wales Sheep-Wheat Belt: I. Diagnosis, Characteristics and Management.’ (CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology: Canberra.)

Robinson D., and Traill B. J. (1996). Conserving woodland birds in the wheat and sheep belts of southern Australia. Conservation Statement No. 10, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

Rosenzweig M. L. (1985). Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In ‘Habitat Selection in Birds’. (Ed. M. L. Cody.) pp. 517–540. (Academic Press: London.)

Rosenzweig, M. L. (1991). Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. American Naturalist 137, S5–S28.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Stacey P. B., and Koenig W. D. (Eds) (1990). ‘Cooperative Breeding in Birds.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)

Stamps J. A. (2001). Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In ‘Dispersal’. (Eds J. Clobert, E. Danchin, A. A. Dhondt, and J. D. Nichols.) pp. 230–242. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)

Sutherland W. J. (1996). ‘From Individual Behaviour to Population Ecology.’ (Oxford University Press: New York.)

Switzer, P. V. (2002). Territory quality, habitat selection, and competition in the amberwing dragonfly, Perithemis tenera (Say) (Odonata: Libellulidae): population patterns as a consequence of individual behavior. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 75, 145–157.
Wiens J. A. (1985). Habitat selection in variable environments: shrub-steppe birds. In ‘Habitat Selection in Birds’. (Ed. M. L. Cody.) pp. 227–251. (Academic Press: London.)

Wiens, J. A. , and Rotenberry, J. T. (1981). Censusing and the evaluation of habitat occupancy. Studies in Avian Biology 6, 522–532.