2022
DOI: 10.1111/ibi.13072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of foraging‐range sizes, flight distances and foraging habitat preferences in urban and rural House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) populations

Abstract: Lack of food for nestlings is a crucial factor influencing population size and dynamics in birds. It is one of the most cited reasons for recent House Sparrow Passer domesticus population declines in cities and rural settlements. However, a detailed comparative study of habitat use by parents delivering food to offspring in different environments is still missing. To obtain the most detailed information on fine-scale foraging habitat selection, foraging-range size, flight distance and foraging duration in typi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 57 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…E.g., great tits form small fission-fusion flocks of loose social groups over the non-breeding season. In contrast, house sparrows form very large nomadic, gregarious flocks with loose group-level social preferences, and aggregate at a feeder (Tóth et al 2009;Havlı ček, Riegert, and Fuchs 2022;Dunning et al 2023). In such gregarious systems, the power of the GMM approach may not be appropriate, because meaningful association is difficult to separate from random aggregation (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E.g., great tits form small fission-fusion flocks of loose social groups over the non-breeding season. In contrast, house sparrows form very large nomadic, gregarious flocks with loose group-level social preferences, and aggregate at a feeder (Tóth et al 2009;Havlı ček, Riegert, and Fuchs 2022;Dunning et al 2023). In such gregarious systems, the power of the GMM approach may not be appropriate, because meaningful association is difficult to separate from random aggregation (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%