1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919x.1996.tb08838.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breeding performance of Indian Myna Acridotheres tristis in nestboxes and natural sites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two species showed aggressive behavioral interactions 422 around active breeding cavities. This negative interaction was characterized by negative 423 interactions ("fights") over cavities, a behaviour which was also observed in their native range 424 (Dhanda and Dhindsa 1996). Sixty five percent of the aggressive interactions initiated by the 425 common myna in our observations were against rose-ringed parakeets.…”
Section: Behavioral Interactions Among Species 385mentioning
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The two species showed aggressive behavioral interactions 422 around active breeding cavities. This negative interaction was characterized by negative 423 interactions ("fights") over cavities, a behaviour which was also observed in their native range 424 (Dhanda and Dhindsa 1996). Sixty five percent of the aggressive interactions initiated by the 425 common myna in our observations were against rose-ringed parakeets.…”
Section: Behavioral Interactions Among Species 385mentioning
confidence: 54%
“…However, the common 426 myna benefited from the secondary excavator (the rose-ringed parakeet) by the using holes that 427 were widened by parakeets. While the mynas did not show statistically significant preference 428 to the widened cavities (possibly due to low power resulting from relatively small sample 429 sizes) availability of cavities that were suitable for mynas apparently increased due to the 430 enlargement of small entry cavities by parakeets, which were otherwise not accessible to 431 common myna, probably being too small to enter (Dhanda and Dhindsa 1996). This may be 432 important as cavity nests seem to be a highly limited resource in the park, as discussed below.…”
Section: Behavioral Interactions Among Species 385mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Access by Common Mynas to deeper bushland did not appear to be impeded by native birds, as no interactions, displays or calling took place. Thus, the Common Myna seems to actively select urbanised areas and artificial cavities for breeding, possibly because they offer greater nesting success (Dhanda and Dhindsa 1996), and are in close proximity to ample human food resources.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The low usage of nestboxes was disappointing, although it has been shown that timing of breeding and reproductive success may be unrepresentative in artificial nest-sites, [21][22][23] so that any data derived from a nestbox study may be inferior to that from natural sites. Nests in nestboxes could, however, have been examined more regularly and, more crucially, nestlings could have been ringed and colourringed to obtain information about juvenile mortality and natal philopatry, other unknown parameters in the dynamics of the introduced population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%