Spatial distribution of four sympatric owl species in Carpathian montane forests

• Published in: Raptor Journal
• Main Authors: Šotnár, Karol, Obuch, Ján, Pačenovský, Samuel, Jarčuška, Benjamín
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Walter de Gruyter GmbH 2020
• Subjects: Strix uralensis; Ural Owl
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/srj-2020-0002; https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/srj/ahead-of-print/article-10.2478-srj-2020-0002/article-10.2478-srj-2020-0002.xml; https://www.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/srj-2020-0002

Abstract Knowledge about spatial distribution of owl species is important for inferring species coexistence mechanisms. In the present study, we explore spatial patterns of distribution and habitat selection of four owl species u Eurasian pygmy owl ( Glaucidium passerinum ), boreal owl ( Aegolius funereus ), tawny owl ( Strix aluco ) and Ural owl ( Strix uralensis ) u ranging in body mass from 50 g to 1300 g, with sympatric occurrence in temperate continuous montane forests in the Veľká Fatra Mts., Western Carpathians, central Slovakia. Locations of hooting owl males were surveyed between 2009–2015 in an area of 317 km 2 . Spatial point pattern analysis was used for analysis of owl distribution. Random patterns of owls’ spatial arrangement dominate at both intra- and interspecific levels within the studied area. Only intraspecific distribution of pygmy owls and interspecific distribution of Ural owls toward tawny owls exhibited positive associations. This discrepancy with other studies can be explained in terms of pygmy owlsy preference for high-quality nest sites and/or spatial clustering in their prey distribution, and due to aggressive behaviour of dominant Ural owls toward subdominant tawny owls, respectively. Moreover, we found considerable overlap in habitat preferences between owl species, considering stand age, stand height, tree species richness, distance to open area, elevation, slope, percentage of coniferous tree species and position on hillslope, although pygmy owls were not registered in pure broadleaved stands, Ural owls were not registered in pure coniferous stands, and boreal and Ural owls were more common on slope summits and shoulders than tawny and pygmy owls. The observed patterns of spatial arrangement might suggest developed coexistence mechanisms in these owl species; differences between studies may indicate complex interactions between intra- and interspecific associations and habitat quality and quantity, food availability and owl species involved in those interactions on a landscape ...