| Literature DB >> 32049995 |
Álvaro Luna1,2, Antonio Palma1, Ana Sanz-Aguilar2,3, José L Tella1, Martina Carrete4.
Abstract
There is a growing need to understand how species respond to habitat changes and the potential key role played by natal dispersal in population dynamics, structure and gene flow. However, few studies have explored differences in this process between conspecifics living in natural habitats and those inhabiting landscapes highly transformed by humans, such as cities. Here, we investigate how individual traits and social characteristics can influence the natal dispersal decisions of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) living in urban and rural areas, as well as the consequences in terms of reproductive success and apparent survival. We found short dispersal movements among individuals, with differences between urban and rural birds (i.e., the former covering shorter distances than the latter), maybe because of the higher conspecific density of urban compared to rural areas. Moreover, we found that urban and rural females as well as bold individuals (i.e., individuals with shorter flight initiation distance) exhibited longer dispersal distances than their counterparts. These dispersal decisions have effects on individual fitness. Individuals traveling longer distances increased their reproductive prospects (productivity during the first breeding attempt, and long term productivity). However, the apparent survival of females decreased when they dispersed farther from their natal territory. Although further research is needed to properly understand the ecological and evolutionary consequences of dispersal patterns in transformed habitats, our results provide information about the drivers and the consequences of the restricted natal movements of this species, which may explain its population structuring through restricted gene flow between and within urban and rural areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32049995 PMCID: PMC7015421 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1A) Natal dispersal distances of urban and rural burrowing owls Athene cunicularia (males: gray bars; females: black bars). The inserted figure shows a detailed distribution of dispersal distances lower than 1km. B) Relationship between natal dispersal distances (log-transformed) and individual personality (measured as FID, flight initiation distance). Lines show the tendency observed for males (gray line) and females (black line). Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. Dots are raw data (males: gray dots, females: black dots).
Models obtained to assess the relative importance of individual’s traits (sex and personality, measured as FID), and social variables (conspecific density and productivity in the natal area) on the natal dispersal distances of rural and urban (habitat) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
Models shown are the first 10 models ranked using their AICc. K: number of estimated parameters in approximating model, AICc: Akaike information criteria with small sample bias adjustment, ΔAICc: difference between each model and the best model (i.e., the model with the lowest AICc), weight: Akaike weight.
| Model | K | AICc | ΔAICc | weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FID + habitat + sex | 6 | 590.51 | 0.00 | 0.25 |
| conspeficic density + FID + habitat + sex | 7 | 590.86 | 0.35 | 0.21 |
| conspecific productivity + FID + sex + habitat | 7 | 592.53 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
| conspeficic density + FID + sex | 6 | 592.93 | 2.42 | 0.07 |
| conspecific productivity*habitat + FID*habitat + sex*habitat | 10 | 593.07 | 2.56 | 0.07 |
| conspeficic density + sex | 5 | 593.16 | 2.65 | 0.07 |
| habitat + sex | 5 | 593.70 | 3.19 | 0.05 |
| Sex | 4 | 594.34 | 3.83 | 0.04 |
| conspeficic density + habitat + sex | 6 | 594.61 | 4.10 | 0.03 |
| FID*habitat + sex*habitat | 8 | 594.70 | 4.20 | 0.03 |
Relative importance of individual’s traits (sex and personality, measured as FID), and social variables (conspecific density and productivity in the natal area) on the natal dispersal distances of rural and urban (habitat) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
Estimates and 95% confidence intervals (2.5% and 97.5%) obtained after averaging models in Table 1 (all models) and using the subset of models that did not include habitat (models without habitat). We considered that a given variable has no, weak or strong support when the 95% confidence interval strongly overlapped with zero, barely overlapped with zero (asterisk), or did not overlap with zero (in bold), respectively. Results remained unchanged when model averaging was performed using all candidate models, not only those with ΔAICc < 2 (S3 Table).
| FID | -0.18 | -0.34 | -0.03 |
| habitat (urban) | -0.49 | -0.88 | -0.09 |
| sex (female) | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.87 |
| conspecific density | -0.10 | -0.25 | 0.05 |
| FID | -0.10 | -0.23 | 0.03* |
| sex (female) | 0.59 | 0.35 | 0.83 |
| conspecific density | -0.14 | -0.28 | 0.00 |
Models obtained to assess the relationship between natal dispersal distances and productivity during the first breeding attempt, and long term productivity of rural and urban (habitat) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
All models were run including year as a random term; models for long term productivity also included individual as a random term. Models shown are the first 10 models ranked using their AICc. K: number of estimated parameters in approximating model, AICc: Akaike information criteria with small sample bias adjustment, ΔAICc: difference between each model and the best model (i.e., the model with the lowest AICc), weight: Akaike weight.
| sex + dispersal distance*habitat | 7 | 1372.93 | 0.00 | 0.42 |
| dispersal distance*sex + habitat | 7 | 1374.79 | 1.86 | 0.17 |
| dispersal distance*sex | 6 | 1374.90 | 1.96 | 0.16 |
| sex | 4 | 1376.48 | 3.55 | 0.07 |
| sex + habitat | 5 | 1376.54 | 3.61 | 0.07 |
| dispersal distance*habitat | 6 | 1377.89 | 4.96 | 0.04 |
| sex + dispersal distance + habitat | 6 | 1377.99 | 5.06 | 0.03 |
| sex + dispersal distance | 5 | 1378.24 | 5.31 | 0.03 |
| dispersal distance + habitat | 5 | 1382.84 | 9.91 | 0.00 |
| dispersal distance | 4 | 1383.60 | 10.67 | 0.00 |
| sex + age | 5 | 1239.58 | 0.00 | 0.39 |
| sex + age + habitat | 6 | 1240.69 | 1.11 | 0.22 |
| sex + age + distst | 6 | 1241.34 | 1.76 | 0.16 |
| sex + age + distst + habitat | 7 | 1242.15 | 2.57 | 0.11 |
| sex + age + distst*habitat | 8 | 1242.48 | 2.90 | 0.09 |
| sex | 4 | 1246.63 | 7.05 | 0.01 |
| sex + habitat | 5 | 1247.52 | 7.94 | 0.01 |
| sex + distst | 5 | 1248.16 | 8.58 | 0.01 |
| sex + distst*habitat | 7 | 1248.52 | 8.94 | 0.00 |
| sex + distst + habitat | 6 | 1248.64 | 9.06 | 0.00 |
Estimates and 95% confidence intervals (2.5% and 97.5%) obtained after model averaging to assess the relationship between natal dispersal distances and productivity during the first breeding attempt, and long term productivity of rural and urban (habitat) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
We considered that a given variable has no, weak or strong support when the 95% confidence interval strongly overlapped with zero, barely overlapped with zero (asterisk), or did not overlap with zero (in bold), respectively. Results remained unchanged when model averaging was performed using all candidate models, not only those with ΔAICc < 2 (S3 Table).
| dispersal distance | -0.27 | -0.82 | 0.28 |
| sex (females) | 0.50 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| habitat (rural) | -0.36 | -0.76 | 0.04 |
| dispersal distance*sex (females) | 0.62 | 0.05 | 1.19 |
| dispersal distance*habitat (rural) | 0.42 | 0.11 | 0.72 |
| sex (female) | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.45 |
| age | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.14 |
| habitat (urban) | 0.11 | -0.11 | 0.34 |
| dispersal distance | 0.02 | -0.06 | 0.11 |
Model comparison to assess the effects of natal dispersal distances (distance) on immediate survival probabilities of urban and rural (habitat) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
K: number of estimated parameters in approximating model, AICc: Akaike information criteria with small sample bias adjustment, ΔAICc: difference between each model and the best model (i.e., the model with the lowest AICc), deviance: deviance explained by each model.
| Survival model | Detection Probability | K | deviance | AICc | ΔAICc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| distance*sex | sex | 6 | 735.58 | 747.73 | 0.00 |
| constant | sex | 3 | 744.20 | 750.25 | 2.51 |
| distance | sex | 4 | 743.24 | 751.24 | 3.51 |
| sex | sex | 4 | 743.72 | 751.80 | 4.06 |
| habitat | sex | 4 | 744.17 | 752.25 | 4.51 |
| distance*habitat | sex | 6 | 740.19 | 752.35 | 4.62 |
| distance+sex | sex | 5 | 743.03 | 753.14 | 5.41 |
| distance+habitat | sex | 5 | 743.18 | 753.29 | 5.55 |
| habitat+sex | sex | 5 | 743.66 | 753.77 | 6.03 |
| time | sex | 12 | 729.65 | 754.24 | 6.50 |
| time+sex | sex | 13 | 728.62 | 755.30 | 7.57 |
| habitat*sex | sex | 6 | 743.57 | 755.73 | 7.99 |
| ttime+habitat | sex | 13 | 729.65 | 756.33 | 8.60 |
| time+habitat+sex | sex | 14 | 728.59 | 757.38 | 9.65 |
| time*sex | sex | 20 | 722.68 | 764.29 | 16.55 |
| time*habitat | sex | 21 | 722.75 | 766.51 | 18.78 |
| time*habitat*sex | sex | 36 | 703.86 | 781.10 | 33.37 |
| time*habitat*sex | constant | 35 | 707.06 | 782.01 | 34.28 |
| time*habitat*sex | habitat+sex | 37 | 703.84 | 783.39 | 35.65 |
| time*habitat*sex | habitat | 36 | 707.05 | 784.29 | 36.56 |
| time*habitat*sex | habitat*sex | 38 | 703.56 | 785.42 | 37.68 |
| time*habitat*sex | time+sex | 41 | 697.32 | 786.17 | 38.43 |
| time*habitat*sex | time | 40 | 700.19 | 786.70 | 38.96 |
| time*habitat*sex | time+habitat+sex | 42 | 697.31 | 788.51 | 40.78 |
| time*habitat*sex | time+habitat | 41 | 700.17 | 789.02 | 41.29 |
| time*habitat*sex | time*sex | 46 | 695.13 | 795.81 | 48.08 |
| time*habitat*sex | time*habitat | 46 | 697.52 | 798.21 | 50.47 |
| time*habitat*sex | time*habitat*sex | 57 | 682.28 | 809.86 | 62.13 |
Fig 2Relationship between natal dispersal and survival probabilities of male (gray lines) and female (black lines) burrowing owls Athene cunicularia.
Solid lines represent the general tendency obtained using the first model shown in Table 5; dashed lines: 95% confidence intervals.