| Literature DB >> 32341888 |
Tao Liu1, Yongtao Xu1, Bai Mo1, Jinze Shi1, Yachang Cheng2,3, Weiwei Zhang1, Fumin Lei4.
Abstract
The home range size and habitat use of the blue-crowned laughingthrush (Garrulax courtoisi, hereafter BCLT), a critically endangered, subtropical, cooperative-breeding bird species in southeast China, were studied during its breeding period using radio telemetry at different sites during 3 consecutive years (2016-18, from May to June of each year). A total of 17 birds (12 males, four females, and one of unknown sex) were tagged, and a total 1515 locations (mean ± se = 89.12 ± 11.42) were obtained over 54 days of tracking. The average 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) home range size was 10.05 ± 1.17 ha, and the estimated KDE core area (fiexed kernel density estimator, KDE) size was 7.84 ± 1.18 ha. According to the Wilcoxon rank sum tests, both the 100% MCP and KDE core area size of males did not significantly differ from those of females. There were no significant differences in the 100% MCP or KDE core area sizes of the three breeding sites. The available habitats in the breeding sites included water areas, shrubs, grass plots, woodland, residential areas, vegetable field, farmland, and sandy beaches; among them, only woodland was significantly preferred by BCLTs. Woodland (average use ratio was 45.86 ± 1.74%) was strongly preferred by BCLTs for nesting, foraging and roosting. Shrubs/grass plots (24.72 ± 3.39%) and vegetable plots (11.80 ± 1.83%) were used relatively more often than the other habitats, except woodland, since shrubs were always used as perches, and vegetable plots were rich in food resources. Vertically, the canopy layer was used most often from April to June, but it was used most in May when the birds were hatching and brooding. This result indicates that BCLT is predominantly active in the upper strata during the breeding season. In addition, broadleaved trees within or adjacent to villages were important activity areas for the breeding birds; protection and management measures should be increased in these areas. ©2020 Liu et al.Entities:
Keywords: Garrulax courtoisi; Habitat use; Home range; Radio telemetry
Year: 2020 PMID: 32341888 PMCID: PMC7182022 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1The relative positions and habitat features of the three breeding sites.
Figure 2The radio telemetry study area and home range of the blue-crowned laughingthrush in 2016–2018.
Radio telemetry, home range, and core area size data for the blue-crowned laughingthrush in 2016–2018.
| ID | Sex | Breeding site | Capture date | Date of last transmission | Tracking period (days) | No. of locations | Home range size (100% MCP) (ha) | 95% KDE Core area size | Estimated KDE Core area size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20161 | ♂ | I | 2016/5/11 | 2016/6/5 | 15 | 73 | 3.08 | 4.50 | 2.04 |
| 20162 | ♀ | I | 2016/5/12 | 2016/6/5 | 14 | 56 | 3.17 | 5.28 | 1.91 |
| 20163 | ♂ | I | 2016/5/14 | 2016/6/5 | 12 | 86 | 9.51 | 17.45 | 7.56 |
| 20164 | ? | I | 2016/5/14 | 2016/6/5 | 12 | 43 | 15.42 | 20.06 | 18.87 |
| 20165 | ♀ | I | 2016/5/27 | 2016/6/5 | 10 | 90 | 11.06 | 22.06 | 7.53 |
| 20166 | ♀ | I | 2016/5/27 | 2016/6/5 | 10 | 80 | 14.22 | 29.45 | 11.33 |
| 20167 | ♂ | I | 2016/5/29 | 2016/6/5 | 8 | 72 | 11.23 | 23.39 | 11.65 |
| 20168 | ♂ | I | 2016/5/29 | 2016/6/5 | 8 | 71 | 11.48 | 20.06 | 9.65 |
| 20171 | ♂ | II | 2017/5/9 | 2017/6/10 | 22 | 176 | 13.70 | 14.41 | 6.80 |
| 20172 | ♂ | II | 2017/5/9 | 2017/6/10 | 22 | 72 | 8.08 | 11.16 | 6.33 |
| 20173 | ♂ | II | 2017/5/10 | 2017/6/10 | 21 | 156 | 16.74 | 18.00 | 8.29 |
| 20174 | ♂ | II | 2017/5/10 | 2017/6/10 | 21 | 181 | 8.20 | 9.34 | 5.42 |
| 20175 | ♀ | II | 2017/5/19 | 2017/6/20 | 17 | 157 | 18.02 | 22.07 | 11.09 |
| 20181 | ♂ | III | 2018/5/2 | 2018/6/10 | 17 | 43 | 4.11 | 6.59 | 3.22 |
| 20182 | ♂ | III | 2018/5/2 | 2018/6/10 | 17 | 37 | 6.59 | 30.41 | 2.87 |
| 20183 | ♂ | III | 2018/5/2 | 2018/6/10 | 17 | 73 | 12.58 | 23.94 | 15.86 |
| 20184 | ♂ | III | 2018/5/2 | 2018/6/10 | 17 | 49 | 3.72 | 6.34 | 2.81 |
Average home range and core area size of the blue-crowned laughingthrush.
| 100% MCP size (ha) (mean ± se) | 95% KDE core area size (ha) (mean ± se) | Estimated KDE Core area size (ha)(mean ± se) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (2016) | 8 | 9.90 ± 1.62 | 0.157 | 17.78 ± 3.07 | 0.858 | 8.82 ± 1.95 | 0.698 |
| II (2017) | 5 | 12.95 ± 2.08 | 14.99 ± 2.30 | 7.59 ± 0.99 | |||
| III (2018) | 4 | 6.75 ± 2.05 | 16.82 ± 6.12 | 6.19 ± 3.23 | |||
| Males (2016–2018) | 12 | 9.09 ± 1.23 | 0.375 | 19.72 ± 5.12 | 0.489 | 6.88 ± 1.19 | 0.681 |
| Females (2016–2018) | 4 | 11.62 ± 3.15 | 15.46 ± 2.35 | 7.97 ± 2.20 | |||
| All (2016–2018) | 17 | 10.05 ± 1.17 | 16.74 ± 2.05 | 7.84 ± 1.18 |
Figure 3Average percentages of available and used habitat within breeding sites, different sexes and all blue-crowned laughingthrush individuals.
(A) Breeding site I; (B) Breeding site II; (C) Breeding site III; (D) Male; (E) Female; (F) All. Habitat type WA: water area, SG: shrubs/grass plots, WL: woodland, RA: residential area, VP: vegetable plot, FL: Farmland, SB: sandy beach. A negative sign (“-”) indicates the ratio of used habitat was less than the available habitat, a plus sign (“+”) indicates that the ratio of used habitat was greater than the available habitat (according to independent-sample t-test, P < 0.05).
Figure 4Blue-crowned Laughingthrush use of different ecological niches (mean percentage ± se).