Rolstad Jørund, Løken Beate, Rolstad Erlend
Norwegian Forest Research Institute, Høgskoleveien 12, 1432 Ås, Norway e-mail:
Department of Forestry, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5044, 1432 Ås, Norway, , , , , , NO.
Oecologia. 2000 Jul;124(1):116-129. doi: 10.1007/s004420050031.
Habitat selection can be envisaged as a hierarchical spatial process, from choice of home range to choice of dietary item. The green woodpecker (Picus viridis) is described as being closely bound to cultivated land and deciduous forests, mainly due to its summer diet composed of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) found on meadows and pastures. To explore possible responses of this woodpecker to recent changes in land use practice, we studied home ranges, feeding habitats and food selection of a marginal population (four radio-marked males and five females) in a 30,000-ha conifer-dominated landscape at the northern edge of its distribution range in south-central Scandinavia. We asked: (1) Is the green woodpecker confined to areas with cultivated land and deciduous forest? (2) If so, are important food items (ants) particularly abundant or exclusively found there? (3) Can clearcuts and young plantations substitute for cultivated land as feeding habitat? Home ranges (mean=100 ha) were invariably confined to the parts of the landscape that contained cultivated land (<1% of the total area). In summer, birds preferred to feed in cultivated land, presumably due to a higher overall biomass of ants compared to forest habitats. They avoided clearcuts, but preyed extensively upon soil-dwelling ants in young conifer stands (16-30 years old). We failed to find preferences for particular ant groups (Lasius niger and L. flavus) associated with cultivated land. The principal summer food was Serviformica, an ant group that was equally abundant in cultivated land and forest habitat. A positive correlation between ant body mass and a preference index suggests that the birds selected the larger ant species independent of habitat type. In winter, birds fed exclusively on mound-building Formica rufa-ants in closed-canopy, older forest stands. Our results indicate that the green woodpecker successfully utilizes young conifer plantations as feeding habitat. At a larger scale, we hypothesize that green woodpecker populations fail to establish in managed forest tracts, not because of food shortage, but because the landscapes lack cultivated land serving as a key stimulus encouraging individuals to settle.
栖息地选择可被设想为一个分层的空间过程,从选择家域到选择食物种类。绿啄木鸟(Picus viridis)被描述为与耕地和落叶林紧密相连,主要是因为其夏季食物由在草地和牧场发现的蚂蚁(膜翅目:蚁科)组成。为了探究这种啄木鸟对近期土地利用变化可能的反应,我们在斯堪的纳维亚中南部分布范围北缘一片30000公顷以针叶树为主的景观中,研究了一个边缘种群(四只无线电标记的雄性和五只雌性)的家域、觅食栖息地和食物选择。我们提出以下问题:(1)绿啄木鸟是否局限于有耕地和落叶林的区域?(2)如果是,重要食物(蚂蚁)在那里是否特别丰富或仅在那里被发现?(3)皆伐地和幼龄人工林能否替代耕地作为觅食栖息地?家域(平均 = 100公顷)始终局限于景观中包含耕地的部分(占总面积不到1%)。在夏季,鸟类更喜欢在耕地上觅食,大概是因为与森林栖息地相比,蚂蚁的总体生物量更高。它们避开皆伐地,但在幼龄针叶林林分(16 - 30年树龄)中大量捕食土栖蚂蚁。我们没有发现对与耕地相关的特定蚁群(黑蚁Lasius niger和黄蚁L. flavus)有偏好。主要的夏季食物是Serviformica蚁群,该蚁群在耕地和森林栖息地中同样丰富。蚂蚁体重与偏好指数之间的正相关表明,鸟类选择较大的蚂蚁种类,而与栖息地类型无关。在冬季,鸟类仅在树冠郁闭的老龄森林林分中以筑巢的红林蚁(Formica rufa)为食。我们的结果表明,绿啄木鸟成功地将幼龄针叶人工林用作觅食栖息地。在更大尺度上,我们推测绿啄木鸟种群无法在人工管理的林区建立,不是因为食物短缺,而是因为这些景观缺乏作为鼓励个体定居的关键刺激因素的耕地。