Ángel Hernández. 2021: Habitat use and space preferences of Eurasian Bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) in northwestern Iberia throughout the year. Avian Research, 12(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00241-0
Citation: Ángel Hernández. 2021: Habitat use and space preferences of Eurasian Bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) in northwestern Iberia throughout the year. Avian Research, 12(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00241-0

Habitat use and space preferences of Eurasian Bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) in northwestern Iberia throughout the year

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Ángel Hernández, ahernan@agro.uva.es

  • Received Date: 06 Jun 2020
  • Accepted Date: 06 Jan 2021
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 07 Feb 2021
  • Background 

    For all vertebrates in general, a concerted effort to move beyond single season research is vital to improve our understanding of species ecology. Knowledge of habitat use and selection by Eurasian Bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) is limited with regard to the non-breeding season. To date, research on the habitat of the Iberian subspecies iberiae consists of very general descriptions. In relation to space use, only broad features are available for the entire distribution range of Eurasian Bullfinches, including Iberia.

    Methods 

    In this study, seasonal preferences regarding habitat and space in a population of Eurasian Bullfinches are examined for the first time in the Iberian Peninsula, through direct observation during a six-year period. The essential habitat components, substrate selection and perch height were assessed.

    Results 

    Hedgerows were the key essential habitat component for bullfinches during all seasons. Nevertheless, small poplar plantations became increasingly important from winter to summer-autumn. Bullfinches perched mostly in shrubs/trees throughout the year, but there were significant seasonal changes in substrate use, ground and herbs being of considerable importance during spring-summer. Throughout the year, over half of the records corresponded to feeding, reaching almost 90% in winter. Generally, bullfinches perched noticeably lower while feeding. Male bullfinches perched markedly higher than females, notably singing males in spring-summer. Juveniles perched at a height not much lower than that of males. In all seasons, males tended to feed at greater heights than females. Bullfinches of different ages and sexes were seen bathing in all seasons except winter.

    Conclusions 

    Hedgerow habitat in general appeared to be valuable for bullfinches throughout the year. In summer and autumn, they selected sites with an abundance of food and shade, as well as shelter, a much-needed requirement for fledglings and moulting individuals. There was usually a close link between the most used and most consumed plant species in each season. Males appeared to assume a more important role in vigilance, and often they accompanied dependent young in June and July. Bullfinch conservation strategies should consider seasonal demand for habitat and space.

  • Reproduction is one of the most important activities in the life history of birds and includes a series of activities, such as courting, nesting, mating, laying, hatching and brooding (Parish and Coulson 1998; Gross 2005). Every step of this process requires parents to expend considerable time and energy to ensure reproductive success (Trivers 1972). Usually, these expenditures are distinct in males versus females as there are parental trade-offs and different roles in breeding (Trivers 1974) that are affected by various factors (Sanz et al. 2000), such as parental body condition (van Noordwijk and de Jong 1986), number of offspring (Trivers 1974), partner contribution (Sanz et al. 2000; Horváthová et al. 2012), and habitat environment (Badyaev 1997; Wynne-Edwards 1998).

    Furthermore, nestling survival rates rely on parental care, which is directly related to the environment of the breeding location. Parents increase their investment to compensate for the decline in reproductive success in birds, especially males, when resource availability declines (Badyaev 1997; Wynne-Edwards 1998). Ghalambor (2001) compared the proportion of female and male reproductive investments at different altitudes and found that the investments were positively correlated with altitude, especially in males. Therefore, do male birds that live in extremely arid desert environments increase their reproductive efforts to improve their reproductive success?

    Shrikes (family Laniidae) are unique among passerines and have powerful bills, such as those of falcons; in addition, they feed like raptors. The Isabelline Shrike (Lanius isabellinus) is also an outstanding hunter that feeds on large insects and lizards. The Saxaul Sparrow (Passer ammodendri), which belongs to the Passeridae family, is a passerine species with less information published on it than on any other Passer species (Summers-Smith 1989). Both species are socially monogamous passerine birds with sexual dimorphism and are often distributed in the same areas. However, they have distinctly different characteristics. For instance, the Isabelline Shrike is a raptorial passerine that has a bowl-shaped nest and hatches synchronously, while the Saxaul Sparrow is a passerine species that reproduces in caves or tangled, enclosed nests, live in groups and hatches asynchronously.

    In this study, we compared the reproductive investments of the Saxaul Sparrow and the Isabelline Shrike, both living and breeding in the same habitat in an extremely arid desert, to interpret how desert passerine birds select breeding strategies to acclimatize to arid conditions.

    The study area is located in the desert region of Central Asia near BeiQiaozi village (40°21′ N, 96°13′ E) in the southern part of Gansu An'xi Extremely Arid Desert National Nature Reserve in northwest China. The annual average temperature at the study site from 2010 to 2017 was 9.57 ℃ (with extremes of − 23.3 to 40.9 ℃), and the mean annual precipitation was 41.72 mm (data from a meteorological station constructed in the study area in 2009). The region is a world wind bank with an annual average wind speed of 3.7 m/s, an instantaneous wind speed of more than 17 m/s, an average of 137 sandstorms/year, and an annual frost-free period of 138-146 days (Liu and Yang 2006). The field work was carried out in patchy wooded area that is composed of Elaeagnus angusifolia (90%), Populus gansuensis, and Salix matsudana and is surrounded by desert with several areas of croplands.

    In this region, the Saxaul Sparrow is a resident species, and the Isabelline Shrike is a summer migrant. A total of 110 artificial nest boxes have been mounted in the wooded area since 2009 for the Saxaul Sparrow, providing a convenient mechanism for collecting breeding parameters. The Isabelline Shrike constructed bowl-shaped nests in the trees, and we searched trees around the study area for their natural nests and inspected them during the breeding period. From April to August 2013 and 2014, 19 nests in the nesting period, 8 nests in the hatching period and 13 nests in the nestling period of the Saxaul Sparrow, and 23 nests in the brooding period of the Isabelline Shrike were monitored, and reproductive behaviour was recorded by a miniature camera (AEE HD50, Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., Ltd) installed 1‒1.5 m away from the nest. To eliminate interference from the camera on bird behaviour, the camera was wrapped in bark, and a simulated camera was hung in the position for several days before actual recording. Each nest was videoed in the same period from 7:00 to 11:00 in the morning. The video was reviewed on a computer to gather and classify information about the behaviours of parent sparrows around the nest. The feeding behaviours of female and male shrikes were observed to calculate their feeding frequency. We also gathered some basic reproductive parameters, including nest-start time, clutch size, brood size, hatching rate, and fledging rate, for the two species.

    We categorized Saxaul Sparrow behaviours into three breeding periods: nesting period, hatching period and nestling period. Specifically, the behaviours of parent sparrows around the nest were separated into 13 actions. (1) Nesting: female and male sparrows enter the nest with grass, feathers and other nest materials during the nesting period; (2) nest-inspecting: the parents enter the nest within 10 s without any nest material and get out immediately during the nesting and hatching period; (3) nest-tidying: the parents enter the nest for more than 10 s without any material in the nesting period and stay in the nest for between 10 and 20 s with no materials during the hatching period; (4) adding nest-material: parent birds carry grass, feathers and other materials into their nest during the hatching period; (5) removing nest-material, the parent sparrows remove nest material from the nest during the hatching period; (6) incubating: the parents enter the nest for more than 20 s in the hatching period; (7) expelling: the parents drive away other same species who enter the nest region by chirping, chasing, etc.; (8) warning: the parents jump around the nest box and pay close attention to the surroundings; (9) waiting: one of the parent sparrows waits for access to food when its mate feeds the nestlings; (10) removing faeces: the parents remove faeces of nestlings from the nest during the nestling period; (11) preening: the adult sparrows comb their own feather using bill and claws nearby the nest box; (12) feeding: the parents carry food in mouth into the nest box; (13) chirping: the parents call and sing around the nest box.

    All of the behavioural data collected from the video were entered into Excel 2016 and then analysed using SPSS (19.0). For the Saxaul Sparrow data, the paired-sample ttest was used to compare the differences in the frequencies of various actions around the nest boxes carried out by the male and female parent birds from the nesting period to the hatching period to the breeding period. For the Isabelline Shrike data, the paired-sample t test was used to test whether there were differences in the feeding rate between the male and female parent birds. To test whether and how the parental feeding rate was influenced by some factors, we constructed a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for the parental feeding rate of the Isabelline Shrike. In each model, parental feeding rate was chosen as the target variable; brood size, nestling age and nest-beginning were the covariates; and sampling year and nest ID were random effects. We presented the means ± standard error and considered results significant at the P < 0.05 level and extremely significant at the P < 0.001 level.

    We obtained 220 h video on the behaviours of 19 pairs of Saxaul Sparrows in the nesting period. In this period, seven kinds of action, including nesting (14.51%), nest inspecting (6.97%), nest tidying (21.12%), preening (9.58%), chirping (12.55%), expelling (0.29%) and warning (25.91%), were recorded and classified (Table 1). Among these actions, warning and nest tidying were the most frequent behaviours performed by parent birds. By comparing the frequencies of these actions between males and females, we found that in comparison to the females, the males conducted nest tidying (t = − 3.085, df = 49, P < 0.05), preening (t = − 5.523, df = 49, P < 0.001), chirping (t = − 8.360, df = 49, P < 0.001), and warning (t = − 2.824, df = 49, P < 0.05) significantly more frequently; in addition, males also conducted other activities more than females, but the differences did not reach the significant level.

    Table  1.  Frequencies of Saxaul Sparrow parental actions in the nesting period
    Parents' behaviours Female Male 95% CI P
    Nesting 3.82 ± 0.498 3.92 ± 0.486 − 1.531-1.331 0.889
    Nest inspecting 0.78 ± 0.179 1.08 ± 0.151 − 0.749‒0.149 0.186
    Nest tidying 1.48 ± 0.207 2.26 ± 0.180 − 1.288 to − 0.272 0.003
    Preening 0.76 ± 0.109 1.84 ± 0.184 − 1.473 to − 0.687 < 0.001
    Chirping 0.66 ± 0.127 2.74 ± 0.252 − 2.580 to − 1.580 < 0.001
    Expelling 0.02 ± 0.020 0.06 ± 0.034 − 0.120‒0.040 0.322
    Warning 3.02 ± 0.247 4.00 ± 0.270 − 1.677 to − 0.283 0.007
    P values at significant levels are shown in italics, which applies also to Tables 2, 3, 4
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  2.  Behavioural comparison of Saxaul Sparrow parents in the hatching period
    Parents' behaviours Female Male 95% CI P
    Nest inspecting 0.08 ± 0.083 0.38 ± 0.157 − 0.675 to 0.092 0.129
    Nest tidying 0.17 ± 0.098 0.38 ± 0.157 − 0.621 to 0.204 0.307
    Incubating frequency 8.33 ± 0.882 7.50 ± 0.514 − 1.340 to 3.007 0.436
    Incubating time (s) 3384.54 ± 318.797 4452.00 ± 1604.916 − 3942.852 to 2807.936 0.731
    Adding material 2.83 ± 0.374 2.75 ± 0.581 − 1.549 to 1.716 0.917
    Removing material 0.21 ± 0.134 0.04 ± 0.042 − 0.130 to 0.463 0.257
    Warning 7.00 ± 0.651 10.63 ± 0.911 − 5.977 to − 1.273 0.004
    Preening 0.96 ± 0.266 2.79 ± 0.548 − 2.972 to − 0.694 0.003
    Chirping 0.29 ± 0.127 1.96 ± 0.569 − 2.934 to − 0.399 0.012
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  3.  Saxaul Sparrow parent action frequency in the nestling period
    Parents' behaviours Female Male 95% CI P
    Feeding 23.31 ± 2.520 29.33 ± 2.518 − 10.110 to − 1.932 0.005
    Warning 4.73 ± 0.733 14.02 ± 1.578 − 11.860 to − 6.724 < 0.001
    Faeces-clearing 3.92 ± 0.610 1.96 ± 0.365 0.678‒3.239 0.003
    Preening 0.23 ± 0.150 0.77 ± 0.202 − 1.060 to − 0.023) 0.041
    Chirping 0.06 ± 0.46 1.02 ± 0.280 − 1.523 to − 0.393) 0.001
    Waiting 0.38 ± 0.145 1.31 ± 0.302 − 1.444 to − 0.431) 0.001
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  4.  Relationship between parental feeding rate, brood size, nestling age and nest-beginning time for the Isabelline Shrike
    Model Fixed effect Β ± SE t P 95% CI
    Female feeding rate Brood size 1.108 ± 0.145 7.639 < 0.001 0.821‒1.394
    Nestling age 0.481 ± 0.050 9.552 < 0.001 0.381‒0.580
    Nest-beginning time 0.012 ± 0.015 0.813 0.418 − 0.017 to 0.042
    Male feeding rate Brood size 1.174 ± 0.158 7.412 < 0.001 0.861‒1.487
    Nestling age − 0.073 ± 0.069 − 2.493 0.014 − 0.310 to − 0.036)
    Nest-beginning time − 0.047 ± 0.014 − 3.343 < 0.001 − 0.074 to − 0.019
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From the 96 h of video of the 8-nest Saxaul Sparrow in the hatching period, eight kinds of actions were identified (Table 2). Specifically, incubating (37.54%) and warning behaviours (33.72%) occurred the most frequently. Comparing the differences in the frequencies of these actions, in comparison to the females, the males significantly more frequently conducted warning (t = − 3.188, df = 23, P < 0.05), preening (t = − 3.330, df = 23, P < 0.05) and chirping (t = − 2.719, df = 23, P < 0.05) behaviours, but there were no significant differences among the other actions. The males took part in incubation and didn't show significant differences with the females in incubating frequency and time.

    The behaviour of parent Saxaul Sparrows during the nestling period (266 h of behavioural statistics for 13 nests) was divided into six specific actions (Table 3). Among these behavioural actions, feeding nestlings (63.04%) was the most frequent action taken by parents, followed by warning (23.86%) in this period. Furthermore, in comparison to the females, the males conducted significantly more feeding (t = − 2.962, df = 47, P < 0.05), warning (t = − 7.279, df = 47, P < 0.001), chirping (t = − 3.413, df = 47, P < 0.05), waiting (t = − 3.726, df = 47, P < 0.05) and preening (t = − 2.101, df = 47, P < 0.05) behaviours, but the female cleared faeces of the nestlings (t = 3.077, df = 47, P < 0.05) more frequently.

    In this study, data on 23 breeding nests of the Isabelline Shrike were collected with 5.12 ± 0.66 eggs and 3.70 ± 1.33 nestlings per nest. The hatching rate was 69.00%, and the fledging rate was 96.53%. Simultaneously, the ttest showed that the clutch size was significantly larger than the brood size (t = 6.255, df = 24, P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between the brood size and the number of fledglings (t = 1.365, df = 24, P > 0.05). We recorded 3264 h of video on the breeding activity of parent shrikes and then analysed the differences in feeding rates between the males and females. The feeding rate of the males (9.04 ± 4.814 times per hour) was significantly higher than that of the females (4.55 ± 4.772 times per hour; t = − 8.20, df = 135, P = 0.00).

    The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis of the possible factors affecting the feeding rates of the parent Isabelline Shrikes showed that there was a positive correlation between parent-bird feeding times and brood size (P < 0.001), which means that parents feed more prey to nestlings when there are more nestlings (Table 4). Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between female-bird feeding times and nestling age (P < 0.001), and a negative correlation between male bird feeding times and nestling age (P < 0.001), which means that the feeding frequency of female parent birds increased as nestlings grew older and the feeding frequency of male parent birds decreased. In addition, the male-bird feeding rate was significantly affected by the nest-beginning time (P < 0.001), which means that the earlier the reproduction, the higher the male feeding rate (Table 4).

    The frequency of warning and chirping behaviours in the male sparrows was significantly higher than that in the female sparrows from the nesting period to the nestling period, and together, these two actions could be called field protection, which means that field protection is mainly the responsibility of male individuals in the pairs of birds.

    During the nesting period, the nest-building job was mainly performed by males of most social monogamy birds. Behaviours of the Passer birds which live and reproduce in some moisture- and climate-stable areas show similar trends that the nests were built almost by the males alone. For instance, the nests of Spanish Sparrows (P. hispaniolensis) are almost always constructed by males (Summers-Smith 1989), and the male House Sparrows (P. domesticus) are responsible for nesting and building nests alone before finding a mate in Calgary, Canada (McGillivray 1983). Unlike these species, the couples of Desert Sparrows (P. simplex) that live in desert region of Turkmenistan construct nests together (Sopyev 1965), and the Saxaul Sparrow as shown by our results that the nesting work was also carried out by the male and female parent birds together, and the frequency of nesting actions was essentially no different. This may be a common feature of the reproductive investment of birds living in desert environments during nesting periods.

    Related studies have shown that House Sparrow, Spanish Sparrow, and Dead Sea Sparrow (P. moabiticus) females are responsible for egg incubation (Gavrilov 1963; Summers-Smith 1989). Although both female and male Desert Sparrows are involved in incubation, the hatching frequency times are two-fold greater for females than for males (Sopyev 1965). In contrast, in the Saxaul Sparrow, both parents participated in egg incubation, and there was no significant difference between the females and males in terms of the frequency and duration of hatching. Moreover, our results showed that in comparison to the female Saxaul Sparrows, the male Saxaul Sparrows not only devoted more time and energy to warning, preening and chirping behaviours during the hatching period but were also involved in egg hatching and were no different from females, which means that male Saxaul Sparrows invested more in the family in this period. In our study area, the temperature varies greatly in the breeding season, and it is often windy and sandy. The early morning temperature is often below 13 ℃, and the average temperature of embryonic development of eggs is 28.89 ℃ (measured in this study). Therefore, rotating female and male hatching behaviours could ensure that the incubation temperature is not too low and may partly account for the hatching rate of Saxaul Sparrows reaching 81.99% (measured in this study), which is far higher than that of Desert Sparrows and Dead Sea Sparrows living in desert habitats (their hatching rates were 44% and 42%, respectively) (Summers-Smith 1989).

    In the nestling period, in comparison to the female Saxaul Sparrows, the male Saxaul Sparrows also had higher reproductive input, which was embodied in the fact that males possessed a significantly higher frequency of warning, preening, chirping and waiting behaviours than females. In particular, in comparison to the females, the males provided more food to nestlings. Due to the apparently high feeding input by the male parent Saxaul Sparrow, there was a higher fledging rate for this species (91.92%) than for other species. In contrast, only 68% of the Dead Sea Sparrow nestlings fed by the female parent fledged (Yom-Tov and Ar 1980), and when female and male Spanish Sparrows and Desert Sparrows provide prey for offspring together and equal in frequency, 62.3% (Gavrilov 1963) and 76% (Sopyev 1965) of the nestlings fledged, respectively.

    As one of the most critical stages in the whole reproductive process of altricial birds, feeding is directly related to the survival and health of nestlings. In addition, the feeding inputs can partly reflect the reproductive investment of male and female parent birds. Previous studies of feeding input differences between females and males in some socially monogamous birds have shown that, in general, the average feeding rate of females was higher than that of males or generally equal. For instance, the feeding frequency of the male Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) accounts for only 24-40% of the total feeding frequency, which is significantly lower than that of females (Freeman-Gallant 1998). Another study of Great Tit (Parus major) showed that there was no significant difference in the feeding rates between females and males (Bengtsson and Rydén 1983). In addition, in the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a species of shrike living in Central and North America, males and females also have similar feeding rates (Miller 1931; Gawlik et al. 1991). However, in our study, there was a significant difference (t = − 8.20, df = 135, P < 0.001) in the feeding rates of female and male Isabelline Shrikes that bred in the same area as the Saxaul Sparrow. Specifically, male feeding rates were approximately twice as high as those of females, and perhaps because of this, the fledging rate of the Isabelline Shrike nestlings was 96.53%, with a 69.00% hatching rate.

    With the growth of nestlings, the feeding rates of males decreased and those of females increased at the same time. After the last breeding period, the male and female parent birds had similar feeding rates. One bird in a pair would increase its breeding input for compensation when the other in the pair reduced its role in caring for nestlings, when the nestlings were cared for by both parents (Wright and Cuthill 1989; Houston et al. 2005). Therefore, with a decrease in the male feeding rate, the female bird increases its feeding rate to meet the growth needs of their nestlings. Another reason for the change in male and female feeding rates in the daytime may be related to their division of work during the nestling period. Specifically, when the newly hatched squabs were naked with no down, their female parent always covered the nest to keep them warm or keep the sun off them, so the female parent did not spend much time and energy catching prey for the squabs. Along with the organs of the nestlings gradually developed, and their feathers gradually plumped with increasing nestling age (Xu 2002; O'Connor 2008; Zhang 2009), they no longer needed the female parent to be in the nest to provide these and the female could spend more energy and time on feeding behaviours.

    With the increase in brood size, both the male and female Isabelline Shrike parent birds increased their feeding rates, which means that the parents played a role in the prey available to support more fledglings. This strategy could maximise their present reproductive benefits.

    The effort parent birds put into feeding is affected by the ecological environment of the breeding area (Aho et al. 2009). Two studies on parent-breeding input were carried out in two areas with extremely different environments for the House Sparrow. One study showed that the male feeding rates were lower than female feeding rates in temperate climate areas with sufficient food resources (Bédard and Meunier 1983), and the other study showed that there was no significant difference in feeding input between male and female parent birds breeding in places with less food (Hegner and Wingfield 1987). When the environment of a breeding area is poor, such as at high altitudes, parents, especially males, increase their feeding input to subsequent generations to compensate for the negative influence of environmental factors on reproduction in birds and mammals (Badyaev 1997; Wynne-Edwards 1998). In birds, the average feeding frequency of male parent birds breeding in high-altitude areas is 55.6% of the total average feeding frequency, which is significantly higher than that in low-altitude areas (Ghalambor 2001). Another study of reproductive investment in the Grey-capped Greenfinch (Carduelis sinica) showed that the total male input increased as the elevation of the breeding region increased during the breeding period (Badyaev 1997). In conclusion, the reproductive success rates of birds that breed in high-altitude regions are mainly dependent on the investments by males (Lyon et al. 1987; Badyaev 1997). In our study area, the early period in the breeding season (April-May) was characterized by lower temperatures, less precipitation, inconsistent and extreme weather conditions, and even sandstorms (Liu and Yang 2006). Deserts are known for their droughts, gales, changing climates and extreme weather, which make them severely unstable ecological environments. Therefore, in comparison to the female Saxaul Sparrows, the male Saxaul Sparrows provided higher amounts of input during the three periods of reproduction, while the male Isabelline Shrikes possessed higher feeding rates than those of the females, which could be a common characteristic and an adaptation to the harsh desert environment. However, these two passerine birds are very different in terms of their life history characteristics and habits. Therefore, we think that male parent birds increase their reproductive investment and that this could also occur in other passerine birds breeding in hash desert regions. This is a reproductive strategy for birds to adapt to these adverse and changing conditions and ensure sufficient reproductive output.

    The authors are very grateful to Liang Wang for providing help in the field, Dr. Li Ding for teaching us to analyse data, and the management staff of Gansu An'xi Extremely Arid Desert National Nature Reserve for allowing us to conduct this study in this area.

    XB designed the experiments and refined this manuscript, XZ and XY collected the field data, DM developed this manuscript and conducted the data analysis, ML developed most of the data summary, and ZC and XD reviewed the video and recorded the data in Excel. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Not applicable.

    Animals were treated in accordance with the guidelines of the Ethics Committee of the School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University, that specifically approved this study.

    Not applicable.

    The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

  • Alatalo RV. Habitat selection of forest birds in the seasonal environment of Finland. Ann Zool Fenn. 1981;18: 103-14.
    Bas JM, Pons P, Gómez C. Daily activity of Sardinian Warbler Sylvia melanocephala in the breeding season. Ardeola. 2007;54: 335-8.
    Belamendia G. Camachuelo común, Pyrrhula pyrrhula. In: Martí R, del Moral JC, editors. Atlas de las aves reproductoras de España. Madrid: Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza-Sociedad Española de Ornitologia; 2003. p. 592-3.
    Belamendia G. Camachuelo común, Pyrrhula pyrrhula. In: del Moral JC, Molina B, Bermejo A, Palomino D, editors. Atlas de las aves en invierno en España 2007-2010. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente-SEO/BirdLife; 2012. p. 534-5.
    Blumenrath SH, Dabelsteen T. Degradation of great tit (Parus major) song before and after foliation: implications for vocal communication in a deciduous forest. Behaviour. 2004;141: 935-58.
    Borras A, Senar JC, Alba-Sánchez F, López-Sáez JA, Cabrera J, Colomé X, et al. Citril finches during the winter: patterns of distribution, the role of pines and implications for the conservation of the species. Anim Biodivers Conserv. 2010;33: 89-115.
    Brilot BO, Bateson M. Water bathing alters threat perception in starlings. Biol Lett. 2012;8: 379-81.
    Brilot BO, Asher L, Bateson M. Water bathing alters the speed-accuracy trade-off of scape flights in European starlings. Anim Behav. 2009;78: 801-7.
    Campos DP, Bander LA, Raksi A, Blumstein DT. Perch exposure and predation risk: a comparative study in passerines. Acta Ethol. 2009;12: 93-8.
    Cleary GP, Parsons H, Davis A, Coleman BR, Jones DN, Miller KK, et al. Avian assemblages at bird baths: a comparison of urban and rural bird baths in Australia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3): e0150899.
    Clement P. Eurasian Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula. In: Del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Christie DA, editors. Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 15: weavers to New World warblers. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2010. p. 609-10.
    Clement P, Harris A, Davis J. Finches and sparrows. London: Helm; 1993.
    Cody ML. An introduction to habitat selection in birds. In: Cody ML, editor. Habitat selection in birds. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985. p. 3-56.
    Collins SL. A comparison of nest-site and perch-site vegetation structure for seven species of warblers. Wilson Bull. 1981;93: 542-7.
    Cornulier T, Robinson RA, Elston D, Lambin X, Sutherland WJ, Benton TG. Bayesian reconstitution of environmental change from disparate historical records: hedgerow loss and farmland bird declines. Methods Ecol Evol. 2011;2: 86-94.
    Cramp S, Perrins CM. The birds of the western Palearctic, vol 8: crows to finches. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.
    De Groot M, Kmecl P, Figelj A, Figelj J, Mihelič T, Rubinić B. Multi-scale habitat association of the ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana in a sub-Mediterranean area in Slovenia. Ardeola. 2010;57: 55-68.
    Díaz L. Camachuelo común Pyrrhula pyrrhula. In: Salvador A, Morales MB, editors. Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. 2016. . Accessed 07 May 2020.
    Dostine PL, Johnson GC, Franklin DC, Zhang Y, Hempel C. Seasonal use of savanna landscapes by the Gouldian finch, Erythrura gouldiae, in the Yinberrie Hills area, Northern Territory. Wildl Res. 2001;28: 445-58.
    Farina A. Landscape structure and breeding bird distribution in a sub-Mediterranean agro-ecosystem. Landscape Ecol. 1997;12: 365-78.
    Fourcade Y, Besnard AG, Beslot E, Hennique S, Mourgaud G, Berdin G, et al. Habitat selection in a dynamic seasonal environment: vegetation composition drives the choice of the breeding habitat for the community of passerines in floodplain grasslands. Biol Conserv. 2018;228: 301-9.
    Fowler J, Cohen L, Jarvis P. Practical statistics for field biology. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 1998.
    García-del-Rey E, Cresswell W. Density estimates, microhabitat selection and foraging behaviour of the endemic Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea teydea on Tenerife (Canary Islands). Ardeola. 2005;52: 305-17.
    Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;10: 486-9.
    Glutz von Blotzheim UN, Bauer KM. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 14. Passeriformes (5. Teil). II: Fringillidae. Wiesbaden: Aula-Verlag; 1997.
    Goldstein DL. Estimates of daily energy expenditure in birds: the time-energy budget as an integrator of laboratory and field studies. Am Zool. 1988;28: 829-44.
    Götmark F, Post P. Prey selection by sparrowhawks, Accipiter nisus: relative predation risk for breeding passerine birds in relation to their size, ecology and behaviour. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1996;351: 1559-77.
    Gregory RD, Baillie SR. Large-scale habitat use of some declining British birds. J Appl Ecol. 1998;35: 785-99.
    Gregory RD, Noble DG, Custance J. The state of play of farmland birds: population trends and conservation status of lowland farmland birds in the United Kingdom. Ibis. 2004;146(Suppl 2): 1-13.
    Greig-Smith PW. Use of perches as vantage points during foraging by male and female stonechats Saxicola torquata. Behaviour. 1983;86: 215-36.
    Greig-Smith PW, Wilson GM. Patterns of activity and habitat use by a population of bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) in relation to bud-feeding in orchards. J Appl Ecol. 1984;21: 401-22.
    Guitián J, Munilla I. Resource tracking by avian frugivores in mountain habitats of northern Spain. Oikos. 2008;117: 265-72.
    Hancock MH, Wilson JD. Winter habitat associations of seed-eating passerines on Scottish farmland. Bird Study. 2003;50: 116-30.
    Hernández Á. Selección de hábitat en tres especies simpátricas de alcaudones Lanius spp. : segregación interespecífica. Ecología. 1994;8: 395-413.
    Hernández Á. Summer-autumn feeding ecology of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca and Spotted Flycatchers Muscicapa striata: the importance of frugivory in a stopover area in north-west Iberia. Bird Conserv Int. 2009;19: 224-38.
    Hernández Á. Seasonal habitat use in Eurasian red squirrels residing in Iberian hedgerows. Hystrix. 2014;25: 95-100.
    Hernández Á. Diet of Eurasian Sparrowhawks in a Northwest Iberian hedgerow habitat throughout the year. Ornithol Sci. 2018;17: 95-101.
    Hernández Á. Breeding ecology of Eurasian bullfinches Pyrrhula pyrrhula in an Iberian hedgerow habitat. J Nat Hist. 2021;. .
    Hernández Á, Alegre J. Estructura de la comunidad de Passeriformes en setos de la provincia de León (noroeste de España). Doñana Acta Vertebr. 1991;18: 237-50.
    Hernández Á, Zaldívar P. Epizoochory in a hedgerow habitat: seasonal variation and selective diaspore adhesion. Ecol Res. 2013;28: 283-95.
    Hernández Á, Zaldívar P. Ecology of stoats Mustela erminea in a valley of the Cantabrian Mountains, northwestern Spain. Vertebr Zool. 2016;66: 225-38.
    Herrera CM. Habitat-consumer interactions in frugivorous birds. In: Cody ML, editor. Habitat selection in birds. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985. p. 341-65.
    Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE. The influence of hedge structure, management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: a review. J Environ Manage. 2000;60: 33-49.
    Hogstad O. Rank-related response in foraging site selection and vigilance behaviour of a small passerine to different winter weather conditions. Ornis Fenn. 2015;92: 53-62.
    Huang Q, Swatantran A, Dubayah R, Goetz SJ. The influence of vegetation height heterogeneity on forest and woodland bird species richness across the United States. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8): e103236.
    Jacobs J. Quantitative measurement of food selection. A modification of forage ratio and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia. 1974;14: 413-7.
    Jenkins JMA, Thompson FR Ⅲ, Faaborg J. Species-specific variation in nesting and postfledging resource selection for two forest breeding migrant songbirds. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6): e0179524.
    Jones J. Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. Auk. 2001;118: 557-62.
    Krams I. Perch selection by singing chaffinches: a better view of surroundings and the risk of predation. Behav Ecol. 2001;12: 295-300.
    Lowry R. VassarStats: website for statistical computation. 1998-2020. . Accessed 12 September 2020.
    MacLeod CJ, Parish DMB, Hubbard SF. Habitat associations and breeding success of the Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Bird Study. 2004;51: 239-47.
    Marone L, López de Casenave J, Cueto VR. Patterns of habitat selection by wintering and breeding granivorous birds in the central Monte desert, Argentina. Rev Chil Hist Nat. 1997;70: 73-81.
    Marquiss M. Seasonal pattern in hawk predation on common bullfinches Pyrrhula pyrrhula: evidence of an interaction with habitat affecting food availability. Bird Study. 2007;54: 1-11.
    Marra PP, Cohen EB, Loss SR, Rutter JE, Tonra CM. A call for full annual cycle research in animal ecology. Biol Lett. 2015;11: 20150552.
    Martínez D, García D. Disentangling habitat use by frugivorous birds: constant interactive effects of forest cover and fruit availability. Basic Appl Ecol. 2015;16: 460-8.
    Møller AP, Nielsen JT, Garamszegi LZ. Song post exposure, song features, and predation risk. Behav Ecol. 2006;17: 155-63.
    Møller AP, Nielsen JT, Garamszegi LZ. Risk taking by singing males. Behav Ecol. 2008;19: 41-53.
    Munilla I, Guitián J. Numerical response of Bullfinches Pyrrhula pyrrhula to winter seed abundance. Ornis Fenn. 2012;89: 197-205.
    Newton I. The moult of the Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula. Ibis. 1966;108: 41-87.
    Newton I. Finches. Limpback ed. London: Collins; 1985.
    Newton I. Population limitation in birds. San Diego: Academic Press; 1998.
    Newton I. The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: an appraisal of causal factors and conservation actions. Ibis. 2004;146: 579-600.
    Noval A. Movimientos estacionales y distribución del camachuelo común, Pyrrhula pyrrhula iberiae, en el norte de España. Ardeola. 1971;special issue: 491-507.
    Olsson O, Wiktander U, Nilsson SG. Daily foraging routines and feeding effort of a small bird feeding on a predictable resource. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2000;267: 1457-61.
    Phillimore AB, Owens IPF. Are subspecies useful in evolutionary and conservation biology? Proc R Soc B. 2006;273: 1049-53.
    Pyle P, Saracco JF, DeSante DF. Evidence of widespread movements from breeding to molting grounds by North American landbirds. Auk. 2018;135: 506-20.
    Rechetelo J, Grice A, Reside AE, Hardesty BD, Moloney J. Movement patterns, home range size and habitat selection of an endangered resource tracking species, the black-throated finch (Poephila cincta cincta). PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0167254.
    Rice J, Anderson BW, Ohmart RD. Seasonal habitat selection by birds in the lower Colorado River Valley. Ecology. 1980;61: 1402-11.
    Ríos-Saldaña CA, Delibes-Mateos M, Ferreira CC. Are fieldwork studies being relegated to second place in conservation science? Glob Ecol Conserv. 2018;14: e00389.
    Rivas-Martínez S. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España. Itinera Geobot. 2007;17: 1-436.
    Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography. 1999;22: 447-54.
    Siriwardena GM, Crick HQP, Baillie SR, Wilson JD. Agricultural habitat-type and the breeding performance of granivorous farmland birds in Britain. Bird Study. 2000;47: 66-81.
    Siriwardena GM, Crick HQP, Baillie SR, Wilson JD. Agricultural land-use and the spatial distribution of granivorous lowland farmland birds. Ecography. 2000;23: 702-19.
    Slessers M. Bathing behavior of land birds. Auk. 1970;87: 91-9.
    Stainton JM. Timing of bathing, dusting and sunning. Br Birds. 1982;75: 65-86.
    Stoate C, Szczur J, Aebischer NJ. Winter use of wild bird cover crops by passerines on farmland in northeast England. Bird Study. 2003;50: 15-21.
    Streby HM, Refsnider JM, Peterson SM, Andersen DE. Retirement investment theory explains patterns in songbird nest-site choice. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281: 20131834.
    Sutherland WJ. Diet and foraging behavior. In: Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green R, editors. Bird ecology and conservation. A handbook of techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 233-50.
    Tellería JL. Gestión forestal y conservación de las aves en España peninsular. Ardeola. 1992;39: 99-114.
    Tellería JL, Pérez-Tris J. Habitat effects on resource tracking ability: do wintering Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla track fruit availability? Ibis. 2007;149: 18-25.
    Tellería JL, Asensio B, Díaz M. Aves ibéricas. II. Passeriformes. Madrid: JM Reyero Ediciones; 1999.
    Tellería JL, Ramírez A, Galarza A, Carbonell R, Pérez-Tris J, Santos T. Geographical, landscape and habitat effects on birds in northern Spanish farmlands: implications for conservation. Ardeola. 2008;55: 203-19.
    Temple SA. Individuals, populations, and communities: the ecology of birds. In: Podulka S, Rohrbaugh Jr. RW, Bonney R, editors. Handbook of bird biology. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology-Princeton University Press; 2004. p. 9.1-9.134.
    Verbeek NAM. Comparative bathing behavior in some Australian birds. J Field Ornithol. 1991;62: 386-9.
    Vitz AC, Rodewald AD. Influence of condition and habitat use on survival of post-fledging songbirds. Condor. 2011;113: 400-11.
    Weathers WW, Sullivan KA. Seasonal patterns of time and energy allocation by birds. Physiol Zool. 1993;66: 511-36.
    Wiens JA. The ecology of bird communities, vol. 1. Foundations and patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
    Wilkinson R. Vocal behaviour and call development in the bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula). Bioacoustics. 1990;2: 179-97.
    Wilson JD, Evans AD, Grice PV. Bird conservation and agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
    Woutersen K, Platteeuw M. Atlas de las aves de Huesca: observaciones de aves en el Alto Aragón. Huesca: Kees Woutersen Publicaciones; 1988.
  • Related Articles

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(2)

    1. David J. Beale, Duncan Limpus, Georgia Sinclair, et al. Forever chemicals don't make hero mutant ninja turtles: Elevated PFAS levels linked to unusual scute development in newly emerged freshwater turtle hatchlings (Emydura macquarii macquarii) and a reduction in turtle populations. Science of The Total Environment, 2024. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176313
    2. Ashleigh F. Marshall, François Balloux, Nicola Hemmings, et al. Systematic review of avian hatching failure and implications for conservation. Biological Reviews, 2023, 98(3): 807. DOI:10.1111/brv.12931

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Figures(4)  /  Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (580) PDF downloads (5) Cited by(2)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return