Seasonal Variation in Nestling Diet of the Great Tit Parus major in Orange Groves in Eastern Spain

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Influence of temperatures during the nestling period on post‐fledging survival of great tit Parus major in a Mediterranean habitat

“…Nestlings in the orange plantations of Sagunto are fed mainly with moths, caterpillars being important only for very early nests (Barba and Gil-Delgado 1990). These authors hypothesised that, since life cycle of caterpillars is highly influenced by temperatures (Petersen et al 2000, Stefanescu et al 2003, in Mediterranean (hotter) habitats, caterpillars would develop so fast that tits are unable to synchronize the caterpillar peak with the period of maximum food demand by the nestlings.…”

Patterns of nestling provisioning by a single‐prey loader bird, Great TitParus major

“…Naef-Daenzer & Keller (1999) made a more detailed analysis of how feeding rates in Great Tits varied seasonally with seasonal changes in caterpillar abundance and size. Nestling diet in our population was quite particular for Great Tits, since moths, and not caterpillars, form the bulk of the diet (Barba & Gil-Delgado 1990, Barba et al . 2004).…”

Adaptive plasticity of blue tits(Parus caeruleus)and great tits(Parus major)breeding in natural and semi‐natural insular habitats

“…Both in continental and Corsican populations, the timing of breeding is synchronized with the peak in caterpillar abundance, so that Banbura et al (1994) considered caterpillars to be the major factor influencing life-history traits of Corsican blue tits. Nevertheless, variable nestling diets with low proportions of caterpillars (with only in some cases fewer fledglings produced) have been reported from coniferous forests (van Balen, 1973, for great tit), suburban gardens (Cowie & Hinsley, 1988, for blue and great tits), orange groves (Barba & Gil-Delgado, 1990, for great tit), Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests (Gil-Delgado et al, 1992, Blondel et al, 1991, Banbura et al, 1994, for blue tit) and deciduous Swiss woods (Naef--Daenzer et al, 2000, for great tit). In our pine reafforestation, characterized by a remarkable scarcity of insects (as also reported in Spain by Illera & Atienza, 1995), tit diets are broader, diet overlap of the two tit species decreases and they (particularly the great tit) (spiders, flies, etc.).…”

“…The performance of both species was also much less variable in oak than in pine; the variation measured was greater in reafforestation (blue tit: 11.1 to 96.2%; great tit: 0 to 91.3%) than in oakwood (blue tit: 56.6 to 97.6%; great tit: 51.1 to 94.8%); this may indicate the poorer quality and more variable environment of the reafforestation (Riddington & Golser, 1995). Size range of available prey and greater diet breath of great tits (Naef--Daenzer et al, 2000) should make this species more adapted than blue tit to habitats of lower quality (Barba & Gil-Delgado, 1990).…”

“…: Isenmann, 1987;Barba & Gil-Delgado, 1990;Gil-Delgado et al, 1992;Blondel et al, 1991Blondel et al, , 1993Banbura et al, 1994;Dias & Blondel, 1996;Massa & Lo Valvo, 1996;Lambrechts et al, 1997;Massa, 2002). They feed their young mainly on tree-feeding caterpillars; generally, both species lay greater clutches and fledge more young in deciduous woods than in other habitats.…”