Coexistence of Mediterranean tits: a multidimensional approach

[EN] Differential traits (e.g., feeding at different heights in trees) have evolved to allow the coexistence of putative competitors; such traits have been well studied in small passerines (e.g., Paridae), mainly during the winter. However, few studies have been carried out during the breeding season, when competition could be more intense. We applied here a multidimensional approach, examining ecological (prey type and size, and nesting habitat characteristics) and life history (timing of maximum nestling food demand) traits that might help to explain the coexistence of great (Parus major), crested (Lophophanes cristatus), and coal (Periparus ater) tits breeding in a Mediterranean pine forest. The diets of great and crested tit nestlings were equally diverse, and more diverse than that of coal tit nestlings. Prey size diversity was similar among species. Great and crested tits consumed longer caterpillars than coal tits. This last species preferred to build its nests in nest boxes surrounded by mature vegetation, while great tits preferred immature vegetation and crested tits preferred intermediate vegetation stages. Finally, the breeding cycles of both great and coal tits overlapped to a great extent, while crested tits bred earlier. In summary, each species has a unique combination of niche characteristics that might contribute to the coexistence of the 3 tit species.[FR] Différents traits bioécologiques (ex. une alimentation à différentes hauteurs dans les arbres) ont évolué pour permettre la coexistence des présumés compétiteurs. Ces traits ont été bien étudiés chez les petits passereaux (ex. chez les paridés) principalement en hiver. Cependant, peu d'études se sont attardées à la saison de reproduction, alors que la compétition est peut être plus intense. Nous avons utilisé une approche multidimensionnelle comprenant une étude de traits écologiques (type et taille des proies, caractéristiques de l'habitat de nidification) et de traits d'histoire de vie (période où la demande alimentaire des oisillons est maximale), des traits qui pourraient aider à expliquer la coexistence des mésanges charbonnière (Parus major), huppée (Lophophanes cristatus) et noire (Periparus ater) nichant dans une pinède méditerranéenne. Le régime alimentaire des mésanges noires était moins diversifié que celui des mésanges charbonnière et huppée dont la diversité était similaire. La diversité dans la taille des proies était semblable chez les 3 espèces. Les mésanges charbonnière et huppée consommaient des chenilles de plus grande taille que ne le faisait la mésange noire. Cette dernière préférait construire son nid dans des nichoirs situés dans une végétation mature, tandis que la mésange charbonnière préférait la végétation immature et la mésange huppée les stades intermédiaires de végétation. Finalement, les périodes de reproduction des mésanges charbonnière et noire se chevauchaient en bonne partie, tandis que la mésange huppée se reproduisait plus tôt. En résumé, chaque espèce de mésange présente une combinaison unique de caractéristiques de niche écologique pouvant contribuer à la coexistence des 3 espèces.We would like to thank J. L. Gre o, who helped in the field tasks. The study was financed by the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (MEC, projects CGL2004-00787, CGL2007-61395, and CGL2010-21933-C02-02). F. Atienzar had an FPU grant from the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (AP2004-0907). Vegetation data used in the present study were processed at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) thanks to M. E. Visser and the late L. J. M. Holleman. We thank Sierra Mariola Natural Park and the land owners for their collaboration. Most of the analyses and writing for the present paper were done during a short stay at the NIOO thanks to a grant awarded to F. Atienzar by the Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (2008).Atienzar, F.; Belda Pérez, EJ.; Barba, E. (2013). Coexistence of Mediterranean tits: a multidimensional approach. Ecoscience -Quebec-. 20(1):40-47. https://doi.org/10.2980/20-1-35164047201Alatalo, R. V., Gustafsson, L., & Lundberg, A. (1986). Interspecific Competition and Niche Changes in Tits (Parus spp.): Evaluation of Nonexperimental Data. The American Naturalist, 127(6), 819-834. doi:10.1086/284527Arriero, E., Sanz, J. J., & Romero-Pujante, M. (2006). Habitat structure in Mediterranean deciduous oak forests in relation to reproductive success in the Blue TitParus caeruleus. Bird Study, 53(1), 12-19. doi:10.1080/00063650609461411Atiénzar, F., 2009. Feeding and breeding ecology of three insectivorous birds in Mediterranean ecosystems. PhD thesis, University of Valencia, Valencia.Atiénzar, F., Visser, M. E., Greño, J. L., Holleman, L. J. M., Belda, E. J., & Barba, E. (2010). Across and Within-Forest Effects on Breeding Success in Mediterranean Great TitsParus major. Ardea, 98(1), 77-89. doi:10.5253/078.098.0110Barba, E., Atiénzar, F., Marín, M., Monrós, J. S., & Gil‐Delgado, J. A. (2009). Patterns of nestling provisioning by a single‐prey loader bird, Great TitParus major. Bird Study, 56(2), 187-197. doi:10.1080/00063650902792049Beaver, D. L., & Baldwin, P. H. (1975). Ecological Overlap and the Problem of Competition and Sympatry in the Western and Hammond’s Flycatchers. The Condor, 77(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1366754Begon, M., J. H. Harper & C. R. Townsend (eds), 2006. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 4th Edition. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Betts, M. M. (1955). The Food of Titmice in Oak Woodland. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 24(2), 282. doi:10.2307/1715Brown, W. L., & Wilson, E. O. (1956). Character Displacement. Systematic Zoology, 5(2), 49. doi:10.2307/2411924Cramp, S. & C. M. Perrins (eds), 1993. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume VII. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Dellinger, R. L., Wood, P. B., Keyser, P. D., & Seidel, G. (2007). HABITAT PARTITIONING OF FOUR SYMPATRIC THRUSH SPECIES AT THREE SPATIAL SCALES ON A MANAGED FOREST IN WEST VIRGINIA. The Auk, 124(4), 1425. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2007)124[1425:hpofst]2.0.co;2DHONDT, A. A. (1977). Interspecific competition between great and blue tit. Nature, 268(5620), 521-523. doi:10.1038/268521a0Dhondt, A. A. (2010). Effects of competition on great and blue tit reproduction: intensity and importance in relation to habitat quality. Journal of Animal Ecology, 79(1), 257-265. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01624.xElzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W. Willoughby & J. P. Gibbs (eds), 2001. Monitoring Plant and Animal Populations. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts.Fasola, M., & Alieri, R. (1992). Nest Site Characteristics in Relation to Body Size in Herons in Italy. Colonial Waterbirds, 15(2), 185. doi:10.2307/1521452Fasola, M., & Canova, L. (1992). Nest Habitat Selection by Eight Syntopic Species of Mediterranean Gulls and Terns. Colonial Waterbirds, 15(2), 169. doi:10.2307/1521450GARCIA, J. T., & ARROYO, B. E. (2004). Food-niche differentiation in sympatric Hen Circus cyaneus and Montagu’s Harriers Circus pygargus. Ibis, 147(1), 144-154. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2004.00377.xGibb, J. A., & Betts, M. M. (1963). Food and Food Supply of Nestling Tits (Paridae) in Breckland Pine. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 32(3), 489. doi:10.2307/2605Grant, P. R. (2006). Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches. Science, 313(5784), 224-226. doi:10.1126/science.1128374Gutiérrez, R., E. de Juana, J. A. Lorenzo, 2012. Lista de las aves de España. Sociedad Española de Ornitología. Madrid, Spain.Hartley, P. H. T. (1953). An Ecological Study of the Feeding Habits of the English Titmice. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 22(2), 261. doi:10.2307/1817Hartley, P. H. T. (1987). Ecological aspects of the foraging behaviour of Crested TitsParus cristatus. Bird Study, 34(2), 107-111. doi:10.1080/00063658709476945Herrera, C. M. (1976). A trophic diversity index for presence-absence food data. Oecologia, 25(2), 187-191. doi:10.1007/bf00368853Herrera, C. M. (1981). Combination Rules among Western European Parus Species. Ornis Scandinavica, 12(2), 140. doi:10.2307/3676042Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M., & Shaw, P. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542084HOGSTAD, O. (2008). DIFFERENTIATION OF FORAGING NICHE AMONG TITS, PARUS SPP., IN NORWAY DURING WINTER. Ibis, 120(2), 139-146. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.1978.tb06770.xJayaraman, K., 1999. A Statistical Manual for Forestry Research. Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi, Thrissur, Kerala.Lambrechts, M. M., Adriaensen, F., Ardia, D. R., Artemyev, A. V., Atiénzar, F., Bańbura, J., … Cooper, C. B. (2010). The Design of Artificial Nestboxes for the Study of Secondary Hole-Nesting Birds: A Review of Methodological Inconsistencies and Potential Biases. Acta Ornithologica, 45(1), 1-26. doi:10.3161/000164510x516047Magurran, A. E. (ed.), 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Martin, J.-L., & Thibault, J.-C. (1996). Coexistence in Mediterranean warblers: ecological differences or interspecific territoriality? Journal of Biogeography, 23(2), 169-178. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.00028.xMatthysen, E., Dhondt, A. A., & Adriaensen, F. (1991). Sexual Dimorphism in Bill Length and Breeding Success in Great and Blue Tits (Parus major, P. caeruleus). Ornis Scandinavica, 22(2), 171. doi:10.2307/3676550Minot, E. O. (1981). Effects of Interspecific Competition for Food in Breeding Blue and Great Tits. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 50(2), 375. doi:10.2307/4061Moreno, E., & Carrascal, L. M. (1993). Leg Morphology and Feeding Postures in Four Parus Species: An Experimental Ecomorphological Approach. Ecology, 74(7), 2037-2044. doi:10.2307/1940849Naef-Daenzer, B., & Keller, L. F. (1999). The foraging performance of great and blue tits (Parus major and P. caeruleus) in relation to caterpillar development, and its consequences for nestling growth and fledging weight. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68(4), 708-718. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00318.xPerrins, C. M. (ed.), 1979. British Tits. Collins, London.Polo, V., & Carrascal, L. M. (1999). Shaping the body mass distribution of Passeriformes: habitat use and body mass are evolutionarily and ecologically related. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68(2), 324-337. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00282.xSánchez, S., Cuervo, J. J., & Moreno, E. (2007). Does Habitat Structure Affect Body Condition of Nestlings? A Case Study with Woodland Great TitsParus major. Acta Ornithologica, 42(2), 200-204. doi:10.3161/068.042.0204Sorensen, M. F. L. (1997). Niche Shifts of Coal Tits Parus ater in Denmark. Journal of Avian Biology, 28(1), 68. doi:10.2307/3677096Schoener, T. W. (1970). Nonsynchronous Spatial Overlap of Lizards in Patchy Habitats. Ecology, 51(3), 408-418. doi:10.2307/1935376Torok, Já., & TÓth, Lá. (1999). Asymmetric competition between two tit species: a reciprocal removal experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68(2), 338-345. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00283.xTremblay, I., Thomas, D. W., Lambrechts, M. M., Blondel, J., & Perret, P. (2003). VARIATION IN BLUE TIT BREEDING PERFORMANCE ACROSS GRADIENTS IN HABITAT RICHNESS. Ecology, 84(11), 3033-3043. doi:10.1890/02-0663WILKIN, T. A., PERRINS, C. M., & SHELDON, B. C. (2007). The use of GIS in estimating spatial variation in habitat quality: a case study of lay-date in the Great Tit Parus major. Ibis, 149, 110-118. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2007.00757.