Intrusion experiments to measure territory size: Development of the method, tests through simulations, and application in the frog Allobates femoralis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 10, 2011, Pages

  Ringler, Max ^a   Ringler, Eva ^a   Mendoza, Daniela ^a   Hödl, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOBATES FEMORALIS; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; FROG; INTRUSION EXPERIMENT; MALE; NONHUMAN; SIMULATION; TERRITORIALITY; TERRITORY SIZE; ANIMAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ETHOLOGY; FEMALE; FROGS AND TOADS; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SAMPLE SIZE;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; EPIPEDOBATES FEMORALIS;

ANIMALS; ANURA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ETHOLOGY; FEMALE; MALE; SAMPLE SIZE; TERRITORIALITY;

EID: 80054715376     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025844     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Kaufmann JH, (1983) On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol Rev 58: 1-20 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1983.tb00379.x.
2. Burt WH, (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24: 346-352 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1374834.
3. Anich NM, Benson TJ, Bednarz JC, (2009) Estimating territory and home-range sizes: do singing locations alone provide an accurate estimate of space use. The Auk 126: 626-634 Available:doi:10.1525/auk.2009.08219.
4. Tinbergen N, (1957) The functions of territory. Bird Study 4: 14-27 Available:doi:10.1080/00063655709475864.
5. Brown JL, (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. The Wilson Bulletin 76: 160-169 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4159278.
6. Schoener TW, (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121: 608-629 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2460867.
7. Stamps JA, (1994) Territorial behavior: testing the assumptions. Adv Stud Behav 23: 173-232 Available:doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60354-X.
8. Candolin U, Voigt H, (2001) Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation susceptibility. Oikos 95: 225-230 Available:doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950204.x.
9. Vanpé C, Morellet N, Kjellander P, Goulard M, Liberg O, et al. (2009) Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male's territory, but not by its habitat quality. J Anim Ecol 78: 42-51 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01467.x.
10. Both C, Visser ME, (2000) Breeding territory size affects fitness: an experimental study on competition at the individual level. J Anim Ecol 69: 1021-1030 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2000.00458.x.
11. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hödl W, (2011) Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Molecular Ecology 20: 1759-1771 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05056.x.
12. Bart J, (1995) Acceptance criteria for using individual-based models to make management decisions. Ecol Appl 5: 411-420 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942032.
13. Siegel S, (1957) Nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician 11: 13-19 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2685679.
14. Clark D, Riis C, (2001) Rank-order tournaments and selection. Journal of Economics 73: 167-191 Available:doi:10.1007/BF02340174.
15. Sutherland WJ, (2009) Ecological census techniques. A handbook New York, NY Cambridge Univ. Press.
16. Odum EP, Kuenzler EJ, (1955) Measurement of territory and home range size in birds. The Auk 72: 128-137 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4081419.
17. Brown JL, Orians GH, (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 1: 239-262 Available:doi:10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.001323.
18. Laver PN, Kelly MJ, (2008) A critical review of home range studies. J Wildl Manag 72: 290-298 Available:doi:10.2193/2005-589.
19. Dalke PD, (1942) The cottontail rabbits in Connecticut. Bull State Geol Nat Hist Surv Conn 65: 1-97.
20. Getz WM, Fortmann-Roe S, Cross PC, Lyons AJ, Ryan SJ, et al. (2007) LoCoH: Nonparameteric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PLoS ONE 2 Available:doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000207.
21. Worton BJ, (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164-168 Available:doi:10.2307/1938423.
22. Enemar A, Sjöstrand B, Svensson S, (1978) The effect of observer variability on bird census results obtained by a territory mapping technique. Ornis Scandinavica 9: 31-39 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3676136.
23. Svensson SE, (1979) Census efficiency and number of visits to a study plot when estimating bird densities by the territory mapping method. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 61-68 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2402728.
24. Rooney SM, Wolfe A, Hayden TJ, (1998) Autocorrelated data in telemetry studies: time to independence and the problem of behavioural effects. Mamm Rev 28: 89-98 Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.1998.00028.x.
25. Fieberg J, (2006) Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology 88: 1059-1066 Available:doi:10.1890/06-0930.
26. Börger L, Franconi N, Ferretti F, Meschi F, Michele Gd, et al. (2006) An integrated approach to identify spatiotemporal and individual-level determinants of animal home range size. Am Nat 168: 471-485 Available:doi:10.1086/507883.
27. Giraldeau L, Ron Ydenberg, (1987) The center-edge effect: the result of a war of attrition between territorial contestants. The Auk 104: 535-538 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4087559.
28. Korsten P, Dijkstra TH, Komdeur J, (2007) Is UV signalling involved in male-male territorial conflict in the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)? A new experimental approach. Behaviour 144: 447-470 Available:doi:10.1163/156853907780756030.
29. Desjardins JK, Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick JL, Balshine S, (2008) Differential responses to territory intrusions in cooperatively breeding fish. Anim Behav 75: 595-604 Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.025.
30. Given MF, (1987) Vocalizations and acoustic interactions of the Carpenter Frog, Rana virgatipes. Herpetologica 43: 467-481 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3892148.
31. Poesel A, Dabelsteen T, (2005) Territorial responses of male blue tits to simulated dynamic intrusions: effects of song overlap and intruder location. Anim Behav 70: 1419-1427 Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.04.004.
32. Sogge MK, Koronkiewicz TJ, van Riper C, Durst SL, (2007) Willow flycatcher nonbreeding territory defense behavior in Costa Rica. The Condor 109: 475-480 Available:doi:10.1650/0010-5422(2007)109[475:WFNTDB]2.0.CO;2.
33. Kraaijeveld K, Komdeur J, (2003) Observations on the breeding biology of the Seychelles fody on Cousine Island. Ostrich 74 Journal of African Ornithology: 117-124 Available:doi:10.2989/00306520309485377.
34. Akçay Ç, Reed VA, Campbell SE, Templeton CN, Beecher MD, (2010) Indirect reciprocity: song sparrows distrust aggressive neighbours based on eavesdropping. Anim Behav 80: 1041-1047 Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.009.
35. van Dongen WFD, Mulder RA, (2008) Male and female golden whistlers respond differently to static and dynamic signals of male intruders. Behav Ecol 19: 1025-1033 Available:doi:10.1093/beheco/arn061.
36. Boulanger JG, White GC, (1990) A comparison of home-range estimators using Monte Carlo simulation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 310-315 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3809048.
37. Downs JA, Horner MW, (2008) Effects of point pattern shape on home-range estimates. J Wildl Manag 72: 1813-1818 Available:doi:10.2193/2007-454.
38. Boyle SA, Lourenço WC, da Silva LR, Smith AT, (2009) Home range estimates vary with sample size and methods. Folia Primatol 80: 33-42 Available:doi:10.1159/000201092.
39. Haines AM, Hernández F, Henke SE, Bingham RL, (2006) A method for determining asymptotes of home-range area curves. In: Cederbaum SB, Faircloth BC, Terhune TM, Thompson JJ, Carroll JP, editors. Gamebird 2006: Quail VI and Perdix XII Athens, GA, USA pp. 489-498.
40. Galton A, (2008) Pareto-optimality of cognitively preferred polygonal hulls for dot patterns. In: Freksa C, Newcombe N, Gärdenfors P, Wölfl S, editors. Spatial Cognition VI Berlin, Heidelberg Learning, Reasoning, and Talking about Space Springer pp. 409-425 Available:doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87601-4_29.
41. Edelsbrunner H, Kirkpatrick D, Seidel R, (1983) On the shape of a set of points in the plane. IEEE Trans Inform Theor 29: 551-559 Available:doi: 10.1109/TIT.1983.1056714.
42. Galton A, Duckham M, (2006) What is the region occupied by a set of points. In: Raubal M, Miller H, Frank A, Goodchild M, editors. Geographic Information Science Berlin, Heidelberg Springer pp. 81-98 Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11863939_6.
43. Beyer HL, (2007) Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. 3.27 Available:http://www.spatialecology.com/htools.
44. ASAB, ABS, (2006) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour 71: 245-253 Available:doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.001.
45. Amézquita A, Lima AP, Jehle R, Castellanos L, Ramos Ó, et al. (2009) Calls, colours, shape, and genes: a multi-trait approach to the study of geographic variation in the Amazonian frog Allobates femoralis. Biol J Linn Soc 98: 826-838 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01324.x.
46. Roithmair ME, (1992) Territoriality and male mating success in the dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92: 331-343 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1992.tb00970.x.
47. Hödl W, (1983) Rufverhalten und Phonotaxis bei Männchen von Phyllobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 172.
48. Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS, (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. PNAS 100: 577-580 Available:doi:10.1073/pnas.0237165100.
49. Roithmair ME, (1994) Field studies on reproductive behaviour in two dart-poison frog species (Epipedobates femoralis, Epipedobates trivittatus) in Amazonian Peru. Herpetol J 4: 77-85.
50. Montanarin A, Kaefer IL, Lima AP, (2011) Courtship and mating behaviour of the brilliant-thighed frog Allobates femoralis from Central Amazonia: implications for the study of a species complex. Ethol Ecol Evol 23: 141-150 Available:doi:10.1080/03949370.2011.554884.
51. Ringler M, Ursprung E, Hödl W, (2009) Site fidelity and patterns of short- and long-term movement in the brilliant-thighed poison frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63: 1281-1293 Available:doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0793-7.
52. Narins P, Grabul D, Soma K, Gaucher P, Hödl W, (2005) Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. PNAS 102: 2425-2429 Available:doi:10.1073/pnas.0406407102.
53. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Hödl W, (2009) Phonotactic approach pattern in the dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis: a spatial and temporal analysis. Behaviour 146: 153-170 Available:doi:10.1163/156853909X410711.
54. Hödl W, (1983) Phyllobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae): Rufverhalten und akustische Orientierung der Männchen (Freilandaufnahmen). Wien: Bundesstaatliche Hauptstelle für Wissenschaftliche Kinematographie.
55. Data East, (2003) XTools Pro for ArcGIS Desktop. 4.2.0 (Build 383): Data East, LLC. Available:http://www.xtoolspro.com/.
56. Huff DL, Batsell RR, (1977) Delimiting the areal extent of a market area. J Market Res 14: 581-585 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151205.
57. Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, (2006) Bandwidth selection for fixed-kernel analysis of animal utilization distributions. J Wildl Manag 70: 1334-1344 Available:doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1334:BSFFAO]2.0.CO;2.
58. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B, (2000) Animal Movement. ver. 2.0. Extension to ArcView. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Science Center- Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey. Available:http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/spatial/gistools/index.php/.
59. Laver PN, (2006) ABODE. beta v.5. Kernel Home Range Estimation for ArcGIS, using VBA and ArcObjects. Blacksburg, Virginia Available:http://filebox.vt.edu/users/plaver/abode/home.html.
60. Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Beyer HL, Smith L, Kie JG, (2007) HRT: Home range tools for ArcGIS. 1.1. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research. Available:http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~arodgers/hre/.
61. Getz WM, Wilmers CC, (2004) A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 27: 489-505 Available:doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03835.x.
62. Lyons A, (2004) LoCoH (Local Convex Hull) Homerange Generator for ArcView 3.x. 2.1. Berkeley, California University of California Available:http://nature.berkeley.edu/~alyons/locoh/av3x/index.html.
63. Burgman MA, Fox JC, (2003) Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim Conserv 6: 19-28 Available:doi:10.1017/S1367943003003044.
64. Downs JA, Horner MA, (2009) A characteristic-hull based method for home range estimation. Transactions in GIS 13: 527-537 Available:doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2009.01177.x.
65. Mu L, Liu R, (2011) A heuristic alpha-shape based clustering method for ranked radial pattern data. Appl Geogr 31: 621-630 Available:doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.11.012.
66. Getty T, (1981) Analysis of central-place space-use patterns: the elastic disc revisited. Ecology 62: 907-914 Available:doi:10.2307/1936988.
67. Lichti NI, Swihart RK, (2011) Estimating utilization distributions with kernel versus local convex hull methods. J Wildl Manag 75: 413-422 Available:doi:10.1002/jwmg.48.
68. White MS, Griffin P, (1985) Piecewise linear rubber-sheet map transformation. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 12: 123-131 Available:doi:10.1559/152304085783915135.
69. ESRI (2009) ArcGIS Desktop 9.3 Help. An overview of spatial adjustment. Available:http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=An_overview_of_spatial_adjustment. Accessed 22 March 2011.
70. Gallerani Lawson EJ, Rodgers AR, (1997) Differences in home-range size computed in commonly used software programs. Wildl Soc Bull 25: 721-729 Available:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783526.
71. Mitchell BR, (2006) Comparison of programs for fixed kernel home range analysis. Remotely Wild- The Wildlife Society 21 Available:http://www.uvm.edu/~bmitchel/Publications/HR_Compare.pdf Accessed 15 May 2011.
72. Laver PN, (2005) ABODE User Manual. Blacksburg, Virginia (Beta v.2).
73. Magaña Mendoza D, (2008) Territory size in Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae): playback versus observational method. Austria MSc.-thesis, Department of Evolutionary Biology, of Vienna.
74. Harvey MJ, Barbour RW, (1965) Home range of Microtus ochrogaster as determined by a modified minimum area method. J Mammal 46: 398-402 Available:doi:10.2307/1377624.