Abstract

Habitat preferences of the tree pipit (Anthus trivialis) and the meadow pipit (A. pratensis; Passeriformes: Motacillidae) were observed during the years 1998–1999 at three localities in the Czech Republic; two with one pipit species only, and a third with both species present. We investigated one of the possible mechanisms allowing syntopic coexistence—different habitat selection. We characterised territories of each pipit pair by the habitats present in the territory (defined by dominant plant composition) and by quantitative parameters (territory size, height and density of the vegetation, number of look-outs of different height categories, and proportion of wet ground). Tree pipits preferred significantly higher vegetation of lower density than meadow pipits, and there was generally a higher number of high look-outs in their territories. However, in some of the preferred territories at the allopatric locality of the tree pipit, steep hill slopes could well substitute for higher look-outs, which were almost absent. The two pipit species at the sympatric locality occupied very different habitats, which was also reflected in quantitative parameters of their territories. The available data of pipit habitat at different European localities show that the two species can occupy a much wider range of habitats. The habitat separation in sympatry might therefore be one of the mechanisms allowing syntopic coexistence of both species.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.