Cited by 116Avian ecology and behaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Sequential settlement and site dependence in a migratory raptor

Open access
Sergio, Fabrizio, Blas, Julio, Forero, Manuela G., Donázar, José Antonio, Hiraldo, Fernando·2007·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Habitat selection models, such as the ideal free, ideal despotic, site-dependent, and conspecific cuing models, are of great importance to behavioral ecologists given their capability to predict habitat distributions and to link individual behavior to population processes. However, there have been relatively few field tests of their predictions. We tested the 4 models by studying the process of sequential settlement on territory in 2 distant populations of a migratory raptor, the black kite Milvus migrans. Results were mainly consistent with the site-dependent model: on arrival, kites settled on progressively lower quality territories, and earlier arriving individuals were older, larger, and in better body condition than later arriving ones, leading to a state-dependent arrival sequence also predicted by a previous theoretical model of settlement pattern. Occupation of superior territories by superior phenotypes resulted in cascading advantages for earlier arriving individuals in terms of subsequent reproductive performance. At the population level, the populations expanded/retracted from lower quality sites during population increases/declines. The above scenario was consistent across the 2 populations, and a review of the literature uncovered a remarkably consistent picture of state-dependent arrival, progressive monopolization of best quality sites, and cascading effects on subsequent breeding performance. We propose as a general paradigm of sequential settlement the following process: 1) arrival date is a reliable surrogate of phenotype quality, 2) early-arriving individuals have preferential access to the best quality sites and partners, 3) the above conditions cascade into a number of benefits ultimately related to higher fitness for earlier arriving individuals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/arm052

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Territoriality can also promote an increase in female size, as evidenced by previous studies and by our results.

    “However, territoriality can also promote an increase in female size, as evidenced by previous studies (McDonald et al. 2005;Sergio et al. 2007;Pérez-Camacho et al. 2015) and by our results.”

    From Structural complexity of hunting habitat and territoriality increase the reversed sexual size dimorphism in diurnal raptors (2018) · cites this paper as Sergio et al. 2007

    The ‘Arrival and individual quality’ section reports that larger females arrived earlier, and ‘Arrival and territory quality’ links earlier settlement to better territories (page numbers unavailable). This supports an association between female size and access to territories, but does not show that territoriality causes female size to increase. In ‘Territory takeovers,’ winners were larger, but the size differences were not statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous evidence from a few species suggests that raptor RSD may have evolved by sexual selection through competition among males for a territory, or among females for the best males or territories.

    “This finding extends previous evidence, derived from only a few species, that raptor RSD may have evolved by sexual selection through competition among males for a territory (Widén 1984), or among females for the best males or territories (Sergio et al. 2007;McDonald et al. 2005;Pérez-Camacho et al. 2015).”

    From Structural complexity of hunting habitat and territoriality increase the reversed sexual size dimorphism in diurnal raptors (2018) · cites this paper as Sergio et al. 2007

    The Statistical analyses section says females may choose males, territories, or both, and the Results link female body size with arrival date and earlier settlement with territory quality (page numbers unavailable). These passages support the mate-or-territory choice proposed in the cited clause, but they do not establish that sexual selection through those choices caused raptor reverse sexual size dimorphism. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies for three diurnal raptor species (Northern goshawk and Black kite in Spain and Brown falcon in Australia) have shown that larger females are more likely to be recruited as breeders than smaller ones.

    “Studies for three diurnal raptor species (Northern goshawk and Black kite in Spain and Brown falcon in Australia) have shown that larger females are more likely to be recruited as breeders than smaller ones (McDonald et al. 2005;Sergio et al. 2007; Pérez-”

    From Structural complexity of hunting habitat and territoriality increase the reversed sexual size dimorphism in diurnal raptors (2018) · cites this paper as Sergio et al. 2007

    The ‘Arrival and individual quality’ section reports that body size was associated with arrival date for female black kites: larger females arrived earlier. The study concerns settlement on breeding territories, but it does not show that larger females were more likely than smaller females to be recruited as breeders. This citation supports the black-kite size association, not the stated recruitment outcome. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Berthold P. 1993. Bird migration: a general survey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Caro T, editor. 1998. Behavioral ecology and conservation biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Cramp S, Simmons KEL. 1980. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Vol. 2: hawks and bustards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Crawley MJ. 1993. GLIM for ecologists. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  5. Danchin E, Heg D, Doligez B. 2001. Public information and breeding habitat selection. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD, editors. Dispersal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 243-258.
  6. Espina J. 1984. Variaciones en la alimentacio ´n de una poblacio ´n de milanos negros (Milvus migrans) [MS thesis]. [Madrid (Spain)]: University of Madrid.
  7. Fretwell SD. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
  8. Gosling LM, Sutherland WJ, editors. 2000. Behaviour and conserva- tion. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
  9. Gwinner E, editor. 1990. Bird migration: the physiology and ecophys- iology. Berlin (Germany): Springer.
  10. Lo ˜hmus A. 2003. Are certain habitats better every year? A review and case study on birds of prey. Ecography. 26:545-552.
  11. Marra PP. 2000. The role of behavioural dominance in structuring patterns of habitat occupancy in a migrant during the nonbreeding season. Behav Ecol. 11:299-308.
  12. Morbey YE, Ydenberg RC. 2001. Protandrous arrival timing to breed- ing areas: a review. Ecol Lett. 4:663-673.
  13. Newton I, editor. 1989. Lifetime reproduction in birds. London: Academic Press.
  14. Newton I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. London: Academic Press.
  15. Norris K, Pain DJ, editors. 2002. Conserving bird biodiversity: gen- eral principles and their application. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
  16. Sutherland WJ. 1996. From individual behaviour to population ecol- ogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Sutherland WJ, editor. 1998. Conservation science and action. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  18. Wiley RH. 1981. Social structure and individual ontogenies: problems of description, mechanism and evolution. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH, editors. Perspectives in ethology. New York: Plenum. p. 261- 293.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sergio, F., Blas, J., Forero, M. G., Donázar, J. A., & Hiraldo, F.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2007-07-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
811-821
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2109309157
Cited by
116
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
site dependence, habitat selection, black kite, Milvus migrans, migratory raptors, arrival date, territory quality, ideal free distribution, reproductive performance, population dynamics, body condition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review