Cargando…

The relationship between morphology and behavior in mixed‐species flocks of island birds

Understanding how co‐occurring species divide ecological space is a central issue in ecology. Functional traits have the potential to serve as a means for quantitatively assessing niche partitioning by different species based on their ecological attributes, such as morphology, behavior, or trophic h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weeks, Brian C., Naeem, Shahid, Winger, Benjamin M., Cracraft, Joel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7548193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33072282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6714
Descripción
Sumario:Understanding how co‐occurring species divide ecological space is a central issue in ecology. Functional traits have the potential to serve as a means for quantitatively assessing niche partitioning by different species based on their ecological attributes, such as morphology, behavior, or trophic habit. This enables testing ecological and evolutionary questions using functional traits at spatio‐temporal scales that are not feasible using traditional field methods. Both rapid evolutionary change and inter‐ and intraspecific competition, however, may limit the utility of morphological functional traits as indicators of how niches are partitioned. To address how behavior and morphology interact, we quantified foraging behavior of mixed‐species flocks of birds in the Solomon Islands to test whether behavior and morphology are correlated in these flocks. We find that foraging behavior is significantly correlated with morphological traits (p = .05), but this correlation breaks down after correcting for phylogenetic relatedness (p = .66). These results suggest that there are consistent correlations between aspects of behavior and morphology at large taxonomic scales (e.g., across genera), but the relationship between behavior and morphology depends largely on among‐clade differences and may be idiosyncratic at shallower scales (e.g., within genera). As a result, general relationships between behaviors and morphology may not be applicable when comparing close relatives.