2009
DOI: 10.1071/am08115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of drought on prey selection of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in the Strzelecki Regional Reserve, north-eastern South Australia

Abstract: Changes in the diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) were determined by analysing 619 egested pellets collected in eight samples over 12 months from a roost in the Strzelecki Regional Reserve, north-eastern South Australia. These data were used to examine the occurrence and change in frequency of small vertebrates in the region. In January 2003, at the end of a prolonged dry period, reptiles (predominantly geckos) dominated the diet of the barn owl, forming over 74% of Prey Units (PU%). This is the first Australian… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If major skeletal elements were missing, prey items were identified to genus (small mammals, birds), to order (frogs), and to class (birds) level. Prey numbers were estimated as the minimum number of individuals (MNI) which we determined according to the same anatomical parts of bones for small mammals (Klein & Cruz-Uribe 1984, McDowell & Medlin 2009, Torre et al 2015, Tulis et al 2015 and skulls, mandibles and long bones for birds. The percent frequency of occurrence (MNI%) was calculated for the total number of prey found in all the pellets at the three different landscape categories.…”
Section: Study Area and Sample Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If major skeletal elements were missing, prey items were identified to genus (small mammals, birds), to order (frogs), and to class (birds) level. Prey numbers were estimated as the minimum number of individuals (MNI) which we determined according to the same anatomical parts of bones for small mammals (Klein & Cruz-Uribe 1984, McDowell & Medlin 2009, Torre et al 2015, Tulis et al 2015 and skulls, mandibles and long bones for birds. The percent frequency of occurrence (MNI%) was calculated for the total number of prey found in all the pellets at the three different landscape categories.…”
Section: Study Area and Sample Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diurnal raptors have lower gastric pH, which causes extensive dissolution of prey bones, but such assemblages are still of value to ecologists (Mayhew 1977;Marshall 1986;Pavey et al 2008a). Nocturnal raptors prey on a wide range of species, but often target nocturnal mammals (Pavey et al 2008b;McDowell & Medlin 2009). They have higher gastric pH, which causes less damage to prey bones (Marshall 1986), often regurgitate ingested bones unbroken and tend to occupy cave roosts for generations, frequently concentrating prey remains in enormous numbers (Marshall 1986;Kusmer 1990).…”
Section: Taphonomic and Collection Biasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both the high relative abundance of the living rodents, and probably the owls' search images for these species, bias the resulting accumulations of remains toward disproportionately high rodent and low dasyurid relative abundances (e.g. Morton and Martin 1979;Baynes and Baird 1992;McDowell and Medlin 2009). This effect biases representation of species among remains in cave deposits in favour of rodents.…”
Section: How Representative Are the Fossil Samples?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finlayson 1939;Newsome and Corbett 1975), with peaks following major rain events (e.g. How et al 1991;Reid et al 1993;Dickman et al 1999;McDowell and Medlin 2009). Barn Owls move to take advantage of these booms in rodent numbers (Schodde and Mason 1980), and therefore contribute most bones to deposits when rodent numbers are locally high.…”
Section: How Representative Are the Fossil Samples?mentioning
confidence: 99%