What Animals Stake Out And Defend Territory

Surface area a wild animal consistently defends

In ethology, territory is the sociographical area that an beast consistently defends against conspecific contest (or, occasionally, against animals of other species) using agonistic behaviors or (less commonly) real physical aggression. Animals that actively defend territories in this way are referred to equally being territorial or displaying territorialism.

Territoriality is only shown by a minority of species. More usually, an individual or a group of animals occupies an area that it habitually uses but does not necessarily defend; this is called its home range. The home ranges of different groups of animals often overlap, and in these overlap areas the groups tend to avoid each other rather than seeking to confront and expel each other. Within the home range at that place may exist a cadre area that no other individual group uses, merely, once again, this is as a upshot of abstention.

Part [edit]

The ultimate part of animals inhabiting and defending a territory is to increment the private fitness or inclusive fitness of the animals expressing the behaviour. Fitness in this biological sense relates to the ability of an animal to survive and heighten young. The proximate functions of territory defense vary. For some animals, the reason for such protective behaviour is to acquire and protect food sources, nesting sites, mating areas, or to attract a mate.

Types and size [edit]

Among birds, territories have been classified as six types.^[i]

• Type A: An 'all-purpose territory' in which all activities occur, e.m. courtship, mating, nesting and foraging
• Type B: A mating and nesting territory, non including most of the area used for foraging.
• Blazon C: A nesting territory which includes the nest plus a small area effectually it. Mutual in colonial waterbirds.
• Type D: A pairing and mating territory. The blazon of territory defended by males in lekking species.
• Blazon Due east: Roosting territory.
• Type F: Winter territory which typically includes foraging areas and roost sites. May be equivalent (in terms of location) to the Type A territory, or for a migratory species, may be on the wintering grounds.

Reports of territory size can exist confused by a lack of stardom between habitation range and the defended territory. The size and shape of a territory tin vary co-ordinate to its purpose, flavour, the amount and quality of resources information technology contains, or the geography. The size is usually a compromise of resource needs, defence force costs, predation pressure and reproductive needs.

Some species of squirrels may merits as much as 10 hectares (25 acres) of territory.^[two] For European badgers, a abode range may be as small every bit 30 hectares (74 acres) in a good rural habitat, but equally big as 300 hectares (740 acres) in a poor habitat. On boilerplate, a territory may be approximately fifty hectares (120 acres), with main setts normally at least 500 metres (one,600 ft) autonomously. In urban areas, territories tin be as small as five hectares (12 acres), if they can obtain enough food from bird tables, food waste or bogus feeding in suburban gardens.^[3] Spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) have highly variable territory sizes, ranging from less than 4,000 hectares (9,900 acres) in the Ngorongoro Crater to over 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) in the Kalahari.^[four]

In birds, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) have territories of nine,000 hectares (22,000 acres), least flycatchers' (Empidonax minimus) territories are about 600 square metres (six,500 sq ft) and gulls have territories of simply a few square centimetres in the immediate vicinity of the nest.^[5]

Territories can be linear. Sanderlings (Calidris alba) fodder on beaches and sandflats. When on beaches, they feed either in flocks or individual territories of 10 to 120 metres of shoreline.^[6]

The fourth dimension to develop territories varies between animals. The marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) is a lekking reptile. Males commencement to establish pocket-size brandish territories 2 months ahead of the mating flavor.^[7]

Retaining a territory [edit]

Rather than retaining a territory but past fighting, for some animals this tin can be a 3-stage process. Many animals create "sign-posts" to advertise their territory. Sometimes these sign-posts are on the boundary thereby demarcating the territory, or, may exist scattered throughout the territory. These communicate to other animals that the territory is occupied and may also communicate additional data such equally the sex, reproductive status or say-so condition of the territory-holder. Sign-posts may communicate information past olfactory, auditory, or visual means, or a combination of these. If an intruder progresses further into the territory beyond the sign-posts and encounters the territory-holder, both animals may brainstorm ritualized aggression toward each other. This is a series of stylised postures, vocalisations, displays, etc. which office to solve the territory dispute without bodily fighting as this could injure either or both animals. Ritualized aggression frequently ends by one of the animals fleeing (generally the intruder). If this does not happen, the territory may be defended by actual fighting, although this is generally a last resort.

Advertising the territory [edit]

Odor marker [edit]

Scent mark, also known every bit territorial marker or spraying when this involves urination, is a behaviour used past animals to identify their territory.^{[8] [9] [10]} About usually, this is achieved by depositing strong-smelling substances contained in the urine, faeces, or, from specialised scent glands located on various areas of the body. Often, the scent contains pheromones or carrier proteins such equally the major urinary proteins to stabilize the odours and maintain them for longer.^{[11] [12]} The fauna sniffing the olfactory property oft displays a flehmen response to assist in detecting the mark. Scent marking is oft performed by olfactory property rubbing in many mammals.^[13] In many mammal species, scent marking is more than frequent during the breeding flavour.^[14]

Felids such equally leopards and jaguars mark by rubbing themselves against vegetation. Prosimians and New World monkeys also employ odor marking, including urine washing (self-anointing the torso with urine), to communicate.^{[xv] [16] [17]} Many ungulates, for example the blue wildebeest, use scent mark from two glands, the preorbital gland and a smell gland in the hoof.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Territorial scent marking may involve behaviours specific to this activity. When a wolf marks its territory, it lifts a hind leg and urinates on a scent mail service (usually an elevated position like a tree, rock, or bush).^[18] This raised leg urination is different from normal urination, which is done while squatting. This posture is exclusive to alpha wolves of either sex, although the alpha male person does this nigh oft. The alpha female ordinarily urinates on a aroma postal service that her breeding partner has only urinated on, although during the mating flavor, the female may beginning urinate on the ground. All other females in the pack, and likewise young wolves and low-ranking male wolves, urinate while squatting.^[19] Males and female person band-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) scent-mark both vertical and horizontal surfaces at the overlaps in their domicile ranges using their anogenital scent glands. To practise this, they perform a handstand to mark vertical surfaces, grasping the highest point with their anxiety while applying the odour.^[20]

In the Eastern carpenter bee, Xylocopa virginica, both sexes have glands that evolved for mark the nest. Males, although they have the gland, are unable to produce the marker substance. Females secrete it virtually the nest site entrance to establish their territory.^[21]

Wombats apply feces to mark their territory. They accept evolved specialized abdominal beefcake to produce cubical feces to ensure the feces do non roll away.^[22]

Visual [edit]

Ring-tailed lemurs concur their distinctive tails loftier in the air during territorial scent mark. They also appoint in "stink fights" with intruding males.

The antebrachial odour gland and spur on the forearm of a male ring-tailed lemur

Visual sign-posts may exist a brusk-term or long-term fashion of advertising a territory. Short-term advice includes the colouration or behaviour of the animal, which can only be communicated when the resident is nowadays. Other animals may use more long-term visual signals such as faecal deposits, or marks on the vegetation or basis. Visual mark of territory is often combined with other modes of animal advice.

Some animals take prominent "badges" or visual displays to advertise their territory, often in combination with scent marking or auditory signals. Male European robins are noted for their highly aggressive territorial behaviour. They attack other males that stray into their territories, and have been observed attacking other small birds without credible provocation. Such attacks sometimes lead to fatalities, bookkeeping for up to 10% of adult robin deaths in some areas.^[23] The carmine breast of the bird (i.e. bluecoat) is highly visible when it sings (song marking) at the purlieus of its territory. The ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) advertises its territory with urine odour marks. When it is urinating for marking purposes, it holds its extremely distinctive tail loftier in the air calculation a visual component to the advert; when it is urinating for eliminative purposes, its tail is only slightly raised.^[24]

Rhino accept poor vision only may use visual marker. Dominant white rhino bulls mark their territory with faeces and urine (olfactory mark).^[25] The dung is laid in well defined piles. There may be 20 to thirty of these piles to alarm passing rhinoceroses that it is occupied territory. Other males may deposit dung over the piles of another and afterward the sign-post grows larger and larger. Such a dung heap tin get upwardly to 5 metres wide and one metre high.^[26] Afterwards defecating, greater 1-horned rhinos scratch their hind anxiety in the dung. By continuing to walk, they "ship" their own olfactory property around the paths, thus establishing a smell-marked trail. Some other method of visually marker their territory is wiping their horns on bushes or the ground and scraping with the feet, although this is likely combined with the smell of the marking fauna. The territorial male person scrape-marks every 30 m (98 ft) or so effectually its territory boundary.

Later leaving a urination mark, some animals scrape or dig the basis nearby, thereby leaving a visual advertisement of the territory. This includes domestic dogs.

Several species scratch or chew copse leaving a visual mark of their territory. This is sometimes combined with rubbing on the tree which may leave tufts of fur. These include the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)^[27] and the American black bear (Ursus americanus).^{[28] [29]} Many animals have scent glands in their paws or deposit fur during tree-marking, then tree-marking may exist a combination of both visual and olfactory advertising of the territory. The male ring-tailed lemur has a specialised adaptation to assist in leaving visual/olfactory territorial marks. On their inner forearm (antebrachial) is a scent gland which is covered past a spur. In a behaviour called "spur mark", they grasp the substrate, usually a small sapling, and drag the spur over information technology, cutting into the wood and spreading the gland'southward secretions. When on the footing, ring-tailed lemurs preferentially mark small saplings and when loftier in the trees, they normally mark small vertical branches.^[xx]

European wildcats (Felis silvestris) deposit their faecal marks on plants with high visual conspicuousness that enhances the visual effectiveness of the signal.^[30]

Auditory [edit]

Many animals use vocalisations to advertise their territory. These are brusque-term signals transmitted only when the animal is present, simply tin can travel long distances and over varied habitats. Examples of animals which use auditory signals include birds, frogs and canids.

Wolves advertise their territories to other packs through a combination of scent marking and howling. Under sure weather, wolf howls can be heard over areas of up to 130 km² (fifty sq mi).^[31] When howling together, wolves harmonize rather than chorus on the aforementioned note, thus creating the illusion of there being more wolves than there actually are.^[32] Wolves from different geographic locations may howl in unlike fashions: the howls of European wolves are much more protracted and melodious than those of North American wolves, whose howls are louder and take a stronger emphasis on the outset syllable.^[33]

Ritualized aggression [edit]

Two domestic cats posturing during ritualized assailment over a territory

Animals use a range of behaviours to intimidate intruders and defend their territories, simply without engaging in fights which are expensive in terms of energy and the risk of injury. This is ritualized assailment. Such defense frequently involves a graded series of behaviours or displays that include threatening gestures (such as vocalizations, spreading of wings or gill covers, lifting and presentation of claws, caput bobbing, tail and body chirapsia) and finally, direct assail.

Defence force [edit]

Territories may be held by an individual, a mated or unmated pair, or a group. Territoriality is non always a fixed behavioural characteristic of a species. For example, carmine foxes (Vulpes vulpes) either establish stable home ranges within item areas or are itinerant with no stock-still dwelling house.^[34] Territories may vary with time (season), for example, European robins defend territories equally pairs during the breeding flavor simply every bit individuals during the winter. Resource availability may crusade changes in territoriality, for instance, some nectarivores defend territories just during the mornings when plants are richest in nectar. In species that practice not course pair bonds, male and female territories are often independent, i.e. males defend territories only against other males and females only against other females. In this instance, if the species is polygynous, i male territory probably contains several female person territories, while in some polyandrous species such as the northern jacana, this state of affairs is reversed.

Strategies [edit]

Animals may use several strategies to defend their territories.

The beginning game theory model of fighting is known as the hawk-dove game. This model pits a militarist strategy (always try to injure your opponent and only withdraw from the contest if an injury is received) against a dove strategy (always use a non-injurious display if the rival is another dove and always withdraw if the rival is a hawk).

Some other strategy used in territory defence is the war of attrition. In this model of assailment, ii contestants compete for a resource by persisting while constantly accumulating costs over the time that the contest lasts. Strategically, the game is an auction in which the prize goes to the thespian with the highest bid, and each player pays the loser'southward low bid.

Some animals apply a strategy termed the dear enemy upshot in which two neighbouring territorial animals go less ambitious toward one another one time territorial borders are well-established and they are familiar to each other, but aggression toward unfamiliar animals remains unaffected.^[35] The antipodal of this is the nasty neighbor effect in which a territory-holder shows heightened assailment toward neighbouring territory-holders simply unaffected aggression to unfamiliar animals or distant territory-holders. These contrasting strategies depend on which intruder (familiar or unfamiliar) poses the greatest threat to the resident territory-holder.^[36]

In territory defense by groups of animals, reciprocal altruism can operate whereby the cost to the benefactor in helping defend the territory is less than the gains to the beneficiary.

Resources dedicated [edit]

An creature chooses its territory by deciding what part of its home range it will defend. In selecting a territory, the size and quality play crucial roles in determining an animal's habitat. Territory size generally tends to be no larger than the organism requires to survive, considering defending a larger territory incurs greater energy, fourth dimension and risk of injury costs. For some animals, the territory size is non the most important aspect of territoriality, merely rather the quality of the defended territory.

Behavioural ecologists have argued that food distribution determines whether a species is territorial or not, however, this may exist too narrow a perspective. Several other type of resources may be defended including partners, potential mates, offspring, nests or lairs, display areas or leks. Territoriality emerges where at that place is a focused resources that provides enough for the individual or grouping, within a boundary that is small enough to be dedicated without the expenditure of excessive effort. Territoriality is oftentimes almost strong towards conspecifics, as shown in the case of redlip blenny.^[37] This is because the conspecifics share exactly the same set of resources.

Several types of resource in a territory may be dedicated.

A western marsh harrier is mobbed past a northern lapwing. The marsh harrier, a male, had been quartering the footing in which lapwing and redshank were nesting.

Food: Large lone (or paired) carnivores, such as bears and the bigger raptors require an all-encompassing protected area to guarantee their food supply. This territoriality only breaks downwards when there is a glut of nutrient, for example when grizzly bears are attracted to migrating salmon.

Food related territoriality is least probable with insectivorous birds, where the food supply is plentiful merely unpredictably distributed. Swifts rarely defend an area larger than the nest. Conversely, other insectivorous birds that occupy more constrained territories, such as the ground-nesting blacksmith lapwing may be very territorial, especially in the breeding season during which they not simply threaten or assail many kinds of intruders, simply take stereotyped display behaviour to deter conspecifics sharing neighbouring nesting spots.

The owl limpet (Lottia gigantea) is a big (up to 8 cm in length) limpet. It lives in association with an approximately 1,000 cm^ii area of algal moving-picture show in which its grazing marks can be seen, whereas the remainder of the rock surface is commonly free of any visible film. These areas of algal film stand for the territories of the Lottia; within them the animals do all their grazing. They keep their territories free of other organisms by shoving off any intruders: other Lottia, grazing limpets of the genus Acmaea, predatory snails, and sessile organisms such as anemones and barnacles.^[38]

Nests and offspring: Many birds, particularly seabirds, nest in dense communities but are nonetheless territorial in defending their nesting site to inside the altitude they tin can accomplish while brooding. This is necessary to prevent attacks on their own chicks or nesting material from neighbours. Usually the resulting superimposition of the curt-range repulsion onto the long-range attraction characteristically leads to the well-known roughly hexagonal spacing of nests. One gets a similar hexagonal spacing resulting from the territorial behaviour of gardening limpets such as species of Scutellastra.^[39] They vigorously defend their gardens of particular species of algae, that extend for mayhap 1–ii cm effectually the periphery of their shells.

The desert grass spider, Agelenopsis aperta, ofttimes engages in fights over its territory and the almost combative spiders have the largest territories.^[40]

Some species of penguin defend their nests from intruders trying to steal the pebbles from which the nest is constructed.^[5]

Mating opportunities: The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) is group living with one unmarried breeding male and up to iv communally breeding females per group. Groups typically contain several philopatric adult sons (and daughters) that are believed not to brood in their natal group and all group members participate in territorial defence. Males defend their territory using a nasty neignbour strategy. Group-living male breeders are virtually five times more ambitious towards their neighbours than towards strangers, leading to the prediction that neighbours are the virtually important competitors for paternity. Using a molecular parentage analysis it has been shown that 28% of offspring are sired past neighbouring males and only 7% by strangers.^[41] In certain species of butterflies, such as the Australian painted lady butterfly and the speckled wood butterfly, the male defends territories that receptive females are likely to fly through such as sunny hilltops and sunspots on a woods's floor.^{[42] [43]}

Territory defence in male variegated pupfish (Cyprinodon variegatus) is dependent on the presence of females. Reduced aggression consistent with the dearest enemy effect occurs between conspecific neighbours in the absenteeism of females, but the presence of a female in a male's territory instigates comparably greater aggression between the neighbours.^[44]

In the Skylark (Alauda arvensis), playbacks of neighbour and stranger songs at 3 periods of the breeding season show that neighbours are dear enemies in the center of the season, when territories are stable, but not at the beginning of the breeding season, during settlement and pair germination, nor at the end, when bird density increases due to the presence of immature birds becoming independent. Thus, this love enemy territoriality human relationship is not a fixed pattern but a flexible one probable to evolve with social and ecological circumstances.^[45]

Some species of bees also showroom territoriality to defend mating sites. For example, in Euglossa imperialis, a not-social bee species, males have been observed to occasionally class aggregations of fragrance-rich territories, considered to be leks. These leks serve merely a facultative purpose for this species, in which the more fragrance-rich sites there are, the greater the number of habitable territories. Since these territories are aggregated, females have a large selection of males with whom to potentially mate inside the aggregation, giving females the power of mate choice.^[46] Similar behaviour is also observed in the Eulaema meriana orchid bee. Males in this species of bee bear witness alternative behaviours of territoriality and transiency. Transient male person bees did not defend territories, only instead flew from one territory to the other. They also did not engage in physical contact with the territorial males. On the other mitt, territorial males patrolled an expanse around a tree and used the same territory for upwards to 49 days. It likewise appeared that they gave up territories to new males without violence. Males defend territories solely for mating, and no other resources such as fragrances, nests, nest construction materials, nectar, or pollen are plant at these territories.^[47]

Single resources territories [edit]

Although most territories contain multiple (potential) resource, some territories are defended for only ane purpose. European blackbirds may defend feeding territories that are distant from their nest sites, and in some species that form leks, for example in the Republic of uganda kob (a grazing antelope) and the marine iguana, males defend the lek site which is used only for mating.

Polyterritoriality [edit]

Many species demonstrate polyterritoriality, referring to the act of challenge or defending more than 1 territory. In the European pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), researchers assert that males exhibit polyterritoriality to deceive females of the species into entering into polygynous relationships. This hypothesis, named the deception hypothesis, claims that males accept territories at distances sufficiently corking that females are unable to discern already-mated males. The observation that males travelled long distances, ranging from 200m to iii.5 km, to find a 2nd mate supports this statement.^[48] The debate about polyterritoriality in this species may initiate research about the evolution and reasons for polyterritoriality in other unrelated species.

Run into also [edit]

• Aggression
• Blastoff (biology)
• Biological interaction
• Border command
• Dearest enemy recognition
• Dwelling house range
• Property

References [edit]

1. ^ Anon. "Ornithology: territoriality and coloniality". Retrieved June 22, 2013.
2. ^ Turpin, Chiliad. "Squirrel behaviour and territory". Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 22, 2013.
3. ^ Betimes. "Territories". world wide web.badgerland.co.uk. Retrieved June 23, 2013.
4. ^ Kruuk, H., (1972). The Spotted Hyena: A Written report of Predation and Social Behaviour. University of California Press, ISBN 0226455084
5. ^ ^{a b} Ehrlich, P.R., Dobkin, D.S. and Wheye, D. (1998). "Territoriality". Retrieved June 24, 2013. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. ^ Myers, J.P.; Connors, P.G.; Pitelka, F.A. (1979). "Territory size in wintering Sanderlings: the effects of prey abundance and intruder density" (PDF). Auk. 96: 551–561.
7. ^ Partecke, J.; von Haeseler, A.; Wikelski, M. (2002). "Territory institution in lekking marine iguanas, Amblyrhynchus cristatus: support for the hotshot mechanism". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 51 (half-dozen): 579–587. doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0469-z. S2CID 2132629.
8. ^ Gosling, L. M. "A reassessment of the function of scent mark in territories." Ethology 60.2 (1982): 89-118.
9. ^ Ralls, Katherine. "Mammalian olfactory property marker." Science 171.3970 (1971): 443-449.
10. ^ "Archived copy". www.sspca.org. Archived from the original on 27 Baronial 2002. Retrieved 12 January 2022. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy every bit championship (link)
11. ^ Hurst, J.L., Robertson, D.H.L., Tolladay, U. and Beynon, R.J. (May 1998). "Proteins in urine scent marks of male person business firm mice extend the longevity of olfactory signals". Fauna Behaviour. 55 (5): 1289–97. doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0650. PMID 9632512. S2CID 9879771. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors listing (link)
12. ^ "V133.CHP:Corel VENTURA" (PDF) . Retrieved 2012-11-20 . ^{[ dead link ]}
13. ^ Ryon, Jenny; Fentress, J. C.; Harrington, F. H.; Bragdon, Susan (1986-03-01). "Odor rubbing in wolves (Canis lupus): the result of novelty". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 64 (3): 573–577. doi:10.1139/z86-084. ISSN 0008-4301.
14. ^ John L. Gittleman (9 March 2013). Carnivore Behavior, Environmental, and Evolution. Springer Science & Business organisation Media. ISBN978-1-4757-4716-4.
15. ^ Thou.A. Doyle (2 December 2012). The Study of Prosimian Behavior. Elsevier. ISBN978-0-323-14306-6.
16. ^ Richard Estes (1991). The Behavior Guide to African Mammals: Including Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates . University of California Press. pp. 464–. ISBN978-0-520-08085-0 . Retrieved 25 Dec 2012. urine marking.
17. ^ Mittermeier, R. A.; Rylands, A. B.; Konstant, W. R. (1999). "Primates of the world: An introduction". In Nowak, R. 1000. (ed.). Walker's Mammals of the World (6th ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1–52. ISBN978-0-8018-6251-9.
18. ^ L. David Mech; Luigi Boitani (1 Oct 2010). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-51698-i.
19. ^ "The Territory". wolfbehavior: All you need to know most Wolves. 2005. Archived from the original on June 29, 2013. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
20. ^ ^{a b} Cawthon Lang, Yard.A. (2005). "Primate Factsheets: Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) Behavior". Wisconsin Primate Research Center (WPRC). Retrieved June 29, 2013.
21. ^ Gerling, Dan; Hermann, Henry R (1978). "Biology and mating behavior of Xylocopa virginica Fifty. (Hymenoptera, Anthophoridae)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 3 (2): 99–111. doi:10.1007/BF00294984. S2CID 33309938.
22. ^ "Scientist figures out how wombats poop cubes | CBC Radio". CBC . Retrieved 2018-eleven-20 .
23. ^ "The RSPB-Robin:Territory". RSPB website . Retrieved 2008-05-17 .
24. ^ Palagi, E.; Dapporto, L. (2006). "Urine marker and urination in Lemur catta: a comparison of pattern features" (PDF). Ann. Zool. Fennici. 43: 280–284.
25. ^ Richard Estes (1991). The Beliefs Guide to African Mammals: Including Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates . Academy of California Press. pp. 323–. ISBN978-0-520-08085-0. urine OR urination OR scent marking.
26. ^ von Houwald, F. "Factfile:Greater i horned rhino". Retrieved June 25, 2013.
27. ^ "chemical advice". NatureWorks. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
28. ^ Cabrera, 1000.A. (2013). "Black Bear Marking Trees". Retrieved June 28, 2013.
29. ^ Outburst, T.L. and Pelton, One thousand.R., ( ). Blackness behave mark copse in the Smoky Mountains. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., 5: 45-53 [1]
30. ^ Piñeiro, A.; Barja, I. (2002). "The plant physical features selected past wildcats as bespeak posts: an economic approach to fecal marking". Naturwissenschaften. 99 (10): 801–809. doi:x.1007/s00114-012-0962-nine. PMID 22926138. S2CID 2309455.
31. ^ Feldhamer, G.A., Thompson, B.C. and Chapman, J.A., (2003). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. JHU Press. p.496. ISBN 0801874165
32. ^ Lopez, B.H., (1978). Of Wolves and Men. J.M. Dent and Sons Limited. p.38 ISBN 0-7432-4936-4
33. ^ Zimen, E., (1981). The Wolf: His Place in the Natural World. Souvenir Printing. p.73. ISBN 0-285-62411-3
34. ^ Macdonald 1987, p. 117 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMacdonald1987 (help) ^{[ commendation needed ]}
35. ^ Fisher, J., {1954}. Evolution and bird sociality. In: Evolution As a Process (Huxley, J., Hardy, A. and Ford, East., eds). London, Allen and Unwin. pp. 71-83
36. ^ Müller, C.A.; Manser, M.B. (2007). "'Nasty neighbours' rather than 'dearest enemies' in a social carnivore". Proc. R. Soc. B. 274 (1612): 959–965. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0222. PMC2141673. PMID 17251103.
37. ^ Nursall, J.R. (1977). "Territoriality in Redlip blennies (Ophioblennius atlanticus-Pisces: Blenniidae)". Periodical of Zoology. two. 182 (2): 205–223. doi:ten.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04156.x.
38. ^ Stimson J (1969). "Territoriality of the owl limpet Lottia gigantea". Ecology. 51 (i): 113–118. doi:10.2307/1933604. JSTOR 1933604.
39. ^ Co-operative, G.M., Griffiths, C., Beckley, L.Eastward., Branch, M.L.; Two Oceans. Pub. Struik, 2010. ISBN 978-1-77007-772-0
40. ^ Riechert, Susan E.; Hedrick, Ann V. (October 1993). "A exam for correlations amongst fitness-linked behavioural traits in the spider Agelenopsis aperta (Araneae, Agelenidae)". Creature Behaviour. 46 (4): 669–675. doi:x.1006/anbe.1993.1243. ISSN 0003-3472. S2CID 53201859.
41. ^ Schradin, C.; Schneider, C.; Lindholm, A.G. (2010). "The nasty neighbour in the striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) steals paternity and elicits aggression". Frontiers in Zoology. seven: 19. doi:10.1186/1742-9994-7-19. PMC2908079. PMID 20573184.
42. ^ Alcock, John; Gwynne Daryl (1988). "The mating system of Vanessa kershawi: Males defend landmark territories as mate meet sites". Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 26 (i–iv): 116–124.
43. ^ Davies, N.B. (1978). "Territorial defence in the speckled woods butterfly (Pararge aegeria): The resident always wins". Animal Behaviour. 26: 138–147. CiteSeerX10.1.1.513.4639. doi:x.1016/0003-3472(78)90013-1. S2CID 7445027.
44. ^ Leiser, J.K. (2003). "When are neighbours 'dear enemies' and when are they not? The responses of territorial male person variegated pupfish, Cyprinodon variegatus, to neighbours, strangers and heterospecifics". Animal Behaviour. 65 (3): 453–462. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2087. S2CID 53166315.
45. ^ Briefer, E.; Rybak, F.; Aubin, T. (2008). "When to exist a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis". Animal Behaviour. 76 (4): 1319–1325. doi:x.1016/j.anbehav.2008.06.017. S2CID 21703019.
46. ^ Kimsey, Lynn Siri (1980). "The behaviour of male orchid bees (Apidae, Hymenoptera, Insecta) and the question of leks". Animal Behaviour. 28 (four): 996–1004. doi:x.1016/s0003-3472(80)80088-1. S2CID 53161684.
47. ^ Stern, David Fifty. (1991-10-01). "Male person Territoriality and Culling Male Behaviors in the Euglossine Bee, Eulaema meriana (Hymenoptera: Apidae)". Journal of the Kansas Entomological Social club. 64 (4): 421–437. JSTOR 25085309.
48. ^ Alatalo, Rauno V.; Carlson, Allan; Lundberg, Arne; Ulfstrand, Staffan (1981). "The Conflict Between Male Polygamy and Female Monogamy: The Case of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca". The American Naturalist. 117 (5): 738–753. doi:ten.1086/283756. S2CID 85184225.

Farther reading [edit]

• Walther, F. R., E. C. Mungall, G. A. Grau. (1983) Gazelles and their relatives : a study in territorial behavior Park Ridge, North.J. : Noyes Publications 239, ISBN 0-8155-0928-6
• Stokes, A. W. (editor) (1974) Territory Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross 398, ISBN 0-87933-113-5
• Klopfer, P. H. (1969) Habitats and territories; a written report of the apply of space by animals New York, Basic Books 117 p.

External links [edit]

This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 5 September 2019 (2019-09-05), and does not reflect subsequent edits.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_(animal)

Posted by: sochahaphe1951.blogspot.com

Share this post