COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE … · EMMANUEL MORALEZ DA SILVA COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE ALIMENTAR NA GARÇA-AZUL, Egretta caerulea (L.) Dissertação apresentada

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Centro de Biociências

Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia

COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE ALIMENTAR NA GARÇA-AZUL, Egretta caerulea (L.)

EMMANUEL MORALEZ DA SILVA

EMMANUEL MORALEZ DA SILVA

COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE ALIMENTAR NA GARÇA-AZUL, Egretta caerulea (L.)

Dissertação apresentada à Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, para

obtenção do título de Mestre em

Psicobiologia.

Orientador: Flávio José de Lima Silva

Natal 2008

Título: COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE ALIMENTAR NA GARÇA-AZUL, Egretta caerulea (L.)

Autor: EMMANUEL MORALEZ DA SILVA

Data da defesa: 28 de março de 2008.

Banca Examinadora:

___________________________________

Profa. Celine de Melo

Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, MG

___________________________________

Prof. Arrilton Araújo

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, RN

___________________________________

Prof. Flávio José da Lima Silva

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, RN

Agradecimentos

Agradeço a:

( V ) Deus;

( V ) Família;

( V ) Amigos;

( V ) Demais.

“When we submerge into the divine, the events of yesterday - that once seemed so important

to us - no longer exist, and tomorrow no longer hides in the mystery. All reasons to regret the

past or worrying about the future dissolve in the perpetual and sweet contact with the divine

and always renewed joy of the Spirit - the Eternal Present, the only Reality.”

Paramahansa Yogananda

Resumo

A utilização do habitat é parte importante da biologia de uma espécie. Um dos

recursos importantes para a sobrevivência e reprodução de um indivíduo é o recurso

alimentar. Desta forma, as interações sociais que um animal mantém durante as atividades de

forrageio são de suma importância dentre seus aspectos comportamentais, os quais, por sua

vez, representam a parte de um organismo através da qual este interage com o ambiente,

adaptando-se as variações e mudanças no meio. Garças são conhecidas por formar agregações

alimentares que podem conter até milhares de indivíduos, nas quais componentes sociais do

forrageio têm sido identificados e estudados para várias espécies. Estudos mais aprofundados

destes aspectos ainda são escassos para a garça-azul, Egretta caerulea. Desta forma, o

objetivo deste estudo foi descrever o comportamento social (posturas de exibição,

vocalizações e interações co-específicas) e a territorialidade da espécie durante o período de

forrageio em uma área de baixio lodoso no sistema estuarino de Cananéia, litoral sul do

estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Observou-se a defesa de uma área fixa e exclusiva, próxima ao

manguezal, através da expulsão; algo que ainda não tinha sido registrado com dados concretos

para a espécie. Registraram-se taxas de captura e sucesso maiores para indivíduos forrageando

na área correspondente ao território defendido, assim como menores taxas de investimento no

forrageio. Desta forma, esta pode ser uma das razões pelo estabelecimento de territórios pela

espécie no local. Registraram-se quatro posturas de exibição para a espécie, das quais duas

são novas na literatura e são utilizadas nas interações entre indivíduos. Registrou-se uma

vocalização, que aparentemente é importante no contexto social do forrageio para a espécie e,

possivelmente, tem função de advertência e proclamação da posição de dominância ocupada

pelo indivíduo territorial dentro do grupo. Um indivíduo territorial utiliza-se de três

comportamentos, dos descritos: expulsão, vocalização e encontro (encontro agonístico entre

indivíduos, sem agressão física). Destes, aparentemente a expulsão é utilizada na defesa ativa;

enquanto que os outros dois comportamentos são utilizados de uma forma mais passiva, na

manutenção da posição de dominância do indivíduo, ajudando-o na defesa de seu território de

uma forma menos direta. Assim, com os resultados apresentados neste trabalho,

identificaram-se novos componentes do comportamento social da utilização do recurso

alimentar pela garça-azul, incorporando-se aspectos do comportamento territorial para um

futuro entendimento de sua possível significância adaptativa. Reforça-se também a

importância das interações sociais de garças que forrageiam em agregados contendo milhares

de indivíduos, em áreas ecologicamente importantes.

Palavras-chave: Comportamento Territorial, Defesa, Estuário, Garça-azul, Posturas de

exibição, Território.

- 7 -

Abstract

The use of habitat is an important part of a species biology. One resource of great

importance for the survivor and reproduction of an individual is the food resource. Thus, the

social interactions an animal has during the feeding activities are of extremely importance

within its behavioral aspects, which represents the part of an organism trough which it

interacts with the environment, adapting to changes and variations. Herons are known to form

feeding aggregations of even more than thousands of individuals, in which social components

of foraging have been identified and studied for several species. More profound studies of

these aspects are yet to poor for the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea. Therefore, the aim of

this study was to describe the social behavior (display postures, vocalizations and co-specific

interactions) and the territoriality of the specie during the feeding period in an area of mud

bank in the estuarine system of Cananéia, south coast of São Paulo state, Brazil. The defense

of a fixed and exclusive area, closest to the mangrove, trough expulsion was observed; some

thing that have not yet been registered with concrete data for the specie. Higher capture and

success rates, and lower investment rates (steps/min and stabs/min) were registered for

individuals foraging in areas corresponding to the defended territory. This could be one of

possible reasons for the establishment of territories in the area. Four display postures were

registered for the specie, two of then new in the literature, which are used in the interactions

between individuals; one vocalization, that apparently is important in the social context of

foraging for the specie and, possibly, has a function of advertising and proclaiming the

dominance position of the territorial individual within the group. A territorial individual uses

three behaviors, of the ones described: expulsion, vocalization and encounter (agonistic

encounter between individuals, without physical aggression). Of these, the expulsion is

apparently used in the actual defense, actively; while the other two behaviors are used in a

more passive way, in the maintenance of the dominance position of the individual, helping it

in the defense of its territory in a less direct manner. Therefore, with the results presented in

here, new components of the social utilization of the feeding resource for the Little Blue

Heron were identified, incorporating aspects of the territorial behavior for a future

understanding of its possible adaptive significance. And it also reinforces the importance of

the social interactions of herons foraging in great aggregations, in areas ecologically

important.

Key-words: Defense, Display postures, Estuary, Little Blue Heron, Territory, Territorial

behavior.

Sumário

Resumo vi.

Abstract viii.

Introdução Geral 10.

Objetivos do estudo 14.

Manuscrito 1 - Territorialidade Alimentar na garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, em

Cananéia, Brasil 15.

Manuscrito 2 - Comportamento Social de Garças–azuis, ao Forrageio, no Sudeste do

Brasil 44.

Manuscrito 3 - Comportamento Territorial da Garça-azul, Egretta caerulea 69.

Discussão/Conclusão Geral 96.

Bibliografia Citada na Introdução e Discussão/Conclusão Geral 100.

10

Introdução Geral

O estudo do comportamento animal é uma ponte entre os aspectos moleculares e

fisiológicos da biologia e da ecologia. O comportamento é a ligação entre organismos e o

ambiente, e entre o sistema nervoso e o ecossistema. É uma das propriedades mais

importantes da vida animal e tem um papel fundamental nas adaptações das funções

biológicas. (Snowdon 1999). Snowdon demonstra por alguns ângulos a importância do

entendimento do comportamento de um organismo, grupo, espécie, no estudo de sua biologia.

Desta forma, o presente estudo vem contribuir para um melhor conhecimento da biologia de

uma espécie tão importante quanto todas as outras existentes, agora ou no passado.

Um indivíduo pode apresentar comportamentos dirigidos a si mesmo, ou

comportamentos dirigidos a outros indivíduos, sejam estes da mesma espécie ou não, podendo

estes também ser de diversas naturezas. Assim, pode-se dizer que este indivíduo está engajado

em uma interação social. Porém, o termo social nem sempre foi empregado a indivíduos

simplesmente interagindo entre si. Distinção entre grupos sociais e agregações foi tema de

discussão durante algum tempo entre etólogos e ecólogos. Os etólogos acreditavam que

grupos sociais formavam-se pela genuína atração entre indivíduos, enquanto que agregações

eram meramente coincidências estatísticas de indivíduos convergindo para um mesmo recurso

(Giraldeau & Caraco 2000). Já os ecólogos propuseram uma distinção em nível funcional:

grupos sociais são compostos por indivíduos que tem vantagens evolutivas pela presença de

outros, enquanto que agregações não (Giraldeau & Caraco 2000). Hoje em dia o termo social

é empregado de uma forma mais abrangente; e o conceito utilizado por Giraldeau & Caraco

(2000), o qual aponta social como sendo qualquer conjunto de indivíduos que podem ser

ligados por relações mutuas, é adotado aqui para compreender as interações alimentares da

espécie estudada.

Garças são conhecidas por formar agregações alimentares de altas densidades em

áreas de grande disponibilidade de presas (Kushlan 1981). Várias características sociais destas

agregações já foram estudadas, quanto a sua formação, estrutura e dinâmica. A formação está

ligada à atração das várias espécies pelas espécies brancas (locais nos quais indivíduos

brancos estão presentes atraem mais indivíduos que estejam procurando locais de

alimentação), especialmente a garça-branca-pequena (Egretta thula) (Simth 1995, Caldwell

1981, Kushlan 1977), assim como também pela utilização da informação disponível, na

colônia, das aves que vão e voltam das áreas alimentares - teoria do “centro de informação”

(Ward & Zahavi 1973) - (Erwin 1983, Pratt 1980, Custer & Osborn 1978, Krebs 1974,1978).

11

As agregações podem ser mono-específicas ou conter várias espécies, as quais podem se

diferenciar quanto ao tamanho, morfologia de bico, comportamento alimentar e também

ocupar as agregações em tempos variados, levando-as a diferentes formas de ocupação e

utilização dos recursos em uma mesma área (Battley et al. 2003, Master 1992, Kersten et al.

1991, Kushlan et al. 1985, Erwin 1983, Kushlan 1976b). Estas agregações podem trazer

benefícios alimentares para os indivíduos, como o aumento das taxas de captura e sucesso

(Smith 1995, Master et al. 1993, Götmark et al. 1986, Krebs 1974). Custos também podem

estar associados a estas grandes concentrações de indivíduos, como o aumento na competição

por recursos, o aumento da evidência em relação a predadores e o aumento de doenças e

transmissão parasitária como resultado da proximidade entre os indivíduos (Alcock 2005,

Krebs & Davis 1997). Desta forma, estas convergências de indivíduos para a mesma área não

são ao acaso, e os indivíduos envolvidos desenvolvem relações mutuas que afetam uns aos

outros de forma específica.

A seleção e a utilização do habitat são importantes dentro da biologia de uma espécie,

podendo levar a conseqüências que atuam diretamente nas interações entre espécies e

indivíduos em uma comunidade, assim como em uma determinada área alimentar (Morin

1999). Desta forma, quando indivíduos forrageiam juntos, em uma mesma área e utilizando-se

dos mesmos recursos, pode haver uma sobreposição de nicho entre eles; e ambos acabam por

buscar os mesmos recursos e uma competição pode se estabelecer.

Diferentes formas de competição são reconhecidas (Ricklefs 2001, Krebs & Davis

1997). Na forma mais simples, a exploração, ambos os indivíduos predam sobre o mesmo

recurso, diminuindo as chances de sucesso de cada um; em outra forma os indivíduos tentam

ser o mais rápido na captura da mesma presa, porém sem agressão (“scramble”); e na disputa

direta, os indivíduos interagem agressivamente para capturar o recurso (Milinski & Parker

1991). Uma das formas de utilização do recurso é pela defesa deste, levando a uma

distribuição despótica, na qual poucos indivíduos excluem os outros de uma área rica em

recursos (Krebs & Davis 1997).

Assim, o comportamento social de uma espécie está intimamente relacionado ao seu

comportamento de forrageio, determinando suas tendências nas interações durante o período

alimentar e, por conseqüência, influenciando na utilização do habitat pela espécie. Desta

forma, tornam-se interligados o comportamento social e a utilização despótica do recurso

alimentar.

Território é um espaço fixo, do qual um indivíduo ou grupo de indivíduos mutuamente

tolerantes excluem potenciais exploradores de um determinado recurso ou recursos (Maher &

12

Lott 1995). Para manter este território, o indivíduo necessita utilizar-se de comportamentos

específicos, relacionados à defesa territorial e que transmitam ao oponente a mensagem

específica. Tais comportamentos podem agir de forma ativa ou passiva no oponente. A forma

ativa de defesa é pela perseguição e luta, contato físico agressivo entre os indivíduos (Hoem

et al. 2007, Sogge et al. 2007, Oliver et al. 2006, Moulton et al. 2004, Gese 2001, Turner

1994); de uma forma mais sucinta, os indivíduos podem manter áreas exclusivas mandando

sinais como cheiros através da urina, das fezes ou de substancias produzidas em glândulas

especializadas (Mertl-Millhollen 2006, Barja et al. 2005, Gautier et al. 2004, Shelly 2004,

Gautier & Miaud 2003, Blanchard et al. 2001, Sillero-Zubiri & Macdonald 1998, Peters &

Mech 1975), cantos ou vocalizações (Ripmeester et al. 2007, Searcy et al. 2006, Aubin et al.

2004, Bee & Gerhardt 2002, Jaeger et al. 1996, Kroodsma & Byers 1991) ou exibições

sinalizando ameaça (Kohn et al. 2005, Markus 2002, Gese 2001, Savalli 1993, Schwab &

Stout 1991, Simpson 1968); aspectos estes revisados em Stamps 1994 e Davis & Houston

1984.

Diferentes espécies de aves apresentam comportamento de defesa territorial fora do

período reprodutivo, defendendo uma porção de área que contém o recurso alimentar. Estes

territórios são considerados territórios de inverno, ou tipo E (Wilson 1975, Nice 1941). Entre

as espécies que tiveram este tipo de territorialidade registrado, temos vários Passeriformes

(Koronkiewicz et al. 2006, Brotons 2000, George 1987, Lederer 1977, Daves 1976),

diferentes espécies de aves marinhas (Trippi & Collazo 1997, Turpie 1995, Mayers et al.

1979), entre outras. Dentre os Ciconiiformes, apenas a Egretta garzeta (Nota 2003, Yamada

1994), a Egretta sacra (Recher 1972) e a Ardea cinerea (Marion 1989, Richner 1986) tiveram

territórios de inverno registrados.

A garça-azul, Egretta caerulea (L.), é uma espécie de garça com ampla distribuição no

continente americano, tendo na América do Sul sua ocorrência bastante ligada às áreas

costeiras, especialmente sistemas marinho/estuarinos (Sick 1997), como o Complexo

Estuarino Lagunar de Iguape-Cananéia (sul do estado de São Paulo), nos quais é uma espécie

bastante numerosa. No Hemisfério Norte, vários aspectos de sua biologia foram estudados,

desde os anos 40, por diversos autores. Aspectos ecológicos têm sido os mais abordados

durante os anos (Pyle & Howell 2004, Powel 1987, Caldwell 1986, Erwin 1983, Rodgers

1980b, 1987, Werschkul 1979, Custer & Osborn 1978, Kushlan 1978a, Recher & Recher

1969). Quanto aos aspectos voltados ao estudo do seu comportamento podemos citar: i)

comportamentos alimentares, ou táticas de forrageio (Kelly et al. 2003, Rodgers 1983,

Willard 1977, Kushlan 1976a, 1978b); ii) comportamentos reprodutivos, ou posturas de

13

exibição sexuais (Werschkul 1982, Rodgers 1978, 1980a, Palmer 1962, Meyerriecks 1960,

Meanley 1955); iii) vocalizações e comunicação (Rodgers 1980a). Estudos com a espécie na

América do Sul são escassos, aparecendo a espécie juntamente com várias outras em um

estudo sobre cleptoparasitismo na Venezuela (González 1996); e mais especificamente como

sujeito do estudo em um trabalho sobre sua ecologia reprodutiva em Cubatão-Santos/SP

(Olmos & Silva e Silva 2002, Olmos et al. 2001), como o único feito com a espécie no Brasil.

Da mesma forma, as interações comportamentais de indivíduos durante o forrageio não foram

estudas de forma mais aprofundada para a espécie por nenhum autor.

14

Objetivos

1. Descrever a territorialidade alimentar da garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, em uma área

estuarina (manuscrito 1):

a. Averiguar a defesa de território para a espécie;

b. Caracterizar a distribuição e o uso de área para a alimentação;

c. Analisar as influências da defesa territorial sobre o investimento e o sucesso de

forrageio.

2. Descrever os comportamentos realizados pela espécie durante as interações sociais

durante o forrageio (manuscrito 2):

a. Descrever as posturas de exibição realizadas durante o período de forrageio;

b. Descrever as vocalizações realizadas durante o período de forrageio;

c. Descrever as interações entre indivíduos no período de forrageio.

3. Caracterizar os comportamentos associados à defesa territorial em Egretta caerulea

(manuscrito 3):

a. Verificar a freqüência de ocorrência dos comportamentos expressos pelos

indivíduos territoriais;

b. Determinar freqüência, duração e latência dos comportamentos expressos

durante a defesa territorial.

15

Manuscrito 1

Título – Territorialidade Alimentar na Garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, em Cananéia, Brasil.

Autores - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio José de Lima Silva2 e Emygdio Leite de Araujo

Monteiro-Filho3.

1 – Pós-Graduação em Psicobiologia – Estudos do Comportamento, Universidade Federal do

Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC), 199 Tristão Lobo,

Centro, Cananéia, SP, 11.990-000, Brazil. 2 - Laboratório de sistemática e Ecologia Animal, Dept. de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade

do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Mossoró-RN. 3 - Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Centro Politécnico, Universidade

Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Curitiba, PR, 81.531-990, Brazil. Instituto de Pesquisas

Cananéia (IPeC), 199 Tristão Lobo, Centro, Cananéia, SP, 11.990-000, Brazil.

Periódico – Journal of Animal Ecology, QUALIS A.

Status – a ser submetido.

16

Resumo

1. O uso do habitat pela garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, e a descoberta da territorialidade

alimentar na mesma é apresentado neste trabalho.

2. Os resultados mostraram a existência de um indivíduo territorial defendendo uma área

(2564,46 ± 943,56m²) próxima ao manguezal; e indivíduos não-territoriais (9,17 ±

2,54) no restante da área demarcada (área: 893,25 ± 676,72).

3. Uma correlação positiva fraca (r=0,47, df=46, p<0,05) foi encontrada entre o número

de sobreposições entre o indivíduo territorial e os não-territoriais (2,85 ± 3,07) e a

média de área sobreposta para o indivíduo territorial (171,41 ± 131,40 m²).

4. Maiores taxas de captura (1,52 ± 1,14 x 1,00 ± 1,37 capturas/min) e sucesso (0,45 ±

0,31 x 0,21 ± 0,27), e menores taxas de gasto de energia (45,21 ± 14,96 x 51,22 ±

14,37 passos/min; e 3,65 ± 2,55 x 4,94 ± 3,28 tentativas de captura/min) foram

observadas para indivíduos forrageando em áreas mais próximas à margem.

5. Estes resultados sugerem que o comportamento territorial observado para a garça-azul

está mais relacionado a algum parâmetro alimentar do que à pressão de intrusos.

Ainda, que a territorialidade pode estar relacionada à defesa de áreas que apresentam

maior disponibilidade de presas.

17

Title Page

Title - Feeding Territoriality in the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, in Canaéia, Brazil.

Authors - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio José de Lima Silva2 and Emygdio Leite de

Araujo Monteiro-Filho3.



Centro, Cananéia, SP, 11.990-000, Brazil.

2 - Laboratório de sistemática e Ecologia Animal, Dept. de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade

do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Mossoró-RN.

3 - Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Centro Politécnico,

Universidade Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Curitiba, PR, 81.531-990, Brazil. Instituto

de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC).

Corresponding Author - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva, 3460 Alameda dos Bosques, Parque das

Nascentes, Pinhais, PR, 83.320-970, Brazil, [email protected].

Running headline - Territoriality in the Little Blue Heron.

18

Summary

1. The use of the habitat by the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea (Linnaeus 1758), and

the discovery of the feeding territoriality for the specie is brought here.

2. The results showed the existence of a territorial individual defending in an area

(2564.46 ± 943.56m²) closest to the mangrove, and non-territorial individuals (9.17 ±

2.54) in the rest of a demarcated area (area: 893.25 ± 676.72).

3. A week positive correlation (r=0.47, df=46, p<0.05) was found between the number of

overlapping between the territorial individual and the non-territorial ones (2.85 ± 3.07)

and the mean of overlapped area for the territorial individual (171,41 ± 131,40 m²).

4. Higher capture (1.52 ± 1.14 x 1.00 ± 1.37 catches/min) and success rates (0.45 ± 0.31

x 0.21 ± 0.27) and lower energy expenditure rates (45.21 ± 14.96 x 51.22 ± 14.37

steps/min; and 3.65 ± 2.55 x 4.94 ± 3.28 stabs/min) were observed for individuals

foraging in areas closest to the mangrove.

5. Our results suggest that the territorial behavior observed has more relation to some

food parameters than to the intruder’s pressure, and also that the territoriality observed

might be related to the defense of areas with higher availability of prey.

Key words – Actuation area, Cananéia estuarine system, Defense, Mud bank, Territory.

19

Introduction

The Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, is a specie that is found in all the American

continent, and that has a more coastal distribution in South America, and yet very related to

estuarine systems (Sick 1997). Its behavior and ecology have been well studied in other parts

of the continent (Recher & Recher 1969; Kushlan 1978a; Werschkul 1979,1982; Rodgers

1980a, b, 1987; Erwin 1983; Caldwell 1986; Pyle & Howell 2004; and others); but specific

studies of its foraging behavior, as to the dynamics and not the foraging strategies (Kushlan

1976, 1978b; Willard 1977; Rodgers 1983; Kelly, Gawlik & Kieekbusch 2003), have not yet

been very well accessed; and also, studies on this specie in the latest years are few, especially

in South America (Olmos, Silva e Silva & Prado 2001; Olmos & Silva e Silva 2002).

The use of the feeding site is related to its physical as well as to its biological features,

in which the characteristics of the prey are a very important factor (Kushlan 1981). According

to Kushlan (1981), ciconiiforms aggregate in an area of hight prey availability, are more or

less attracted by other birds, specially the white species (Kushlan 1977, 1979; Caldwell 1981;

Smith 1995), and have certain advantages for this. Thus, the relationships that an individual

has with others (Ricklefs 2001) are very important to the outcome of its behavioral success,

therefore its survival and reproduction acting on its fitness (Alcock 2005).

The defense of an important resource, been it the nest material, food supply, the mate

and so on, acts as an important factor in increasing the individuals chances of success.

According to Noble (1939), the defense of any area characterizes this as a territory; and

further more, we are in agreement to the definition that a territory is a fixed space from which

an individual or group of mutually tolerant individuals excludes competitors from a specific

resource or resources (Maher & Lott 1995). To demonstrate the existence of a territory in a

given specie, three factors must be simultaneously met (Brown & Orians 1970): a territory

must be (i) exclusive, (ii) fixed and (iii) actively or passively defended against intruders.

20

These three factors have been found in territorial behavior of various species of vertebrates,

and observed for different groups of birds (Maher and Lott 2000).

It is well known for colonially breeding birds, including the Ciconiiformes, the

defense of the surroundings of the nest (Nice 1941). And the observation of these territories

has been made for almost every species that has had its breeding biology studied. On the other

hand, the feeding territoriality of this group has not been much documented. Two of the few

species that have had its territorial behavior better studied are the Grey Heron, Ardea cinerea,

by Richner (1986) and Marion (1989), and the Little Egret, Egretta garzeta, by Yamada

(1994) and Nota (2003). Thus, in this study the aim was to describe the feeding territoriality

of the Little Blue Heron in an estuarine system in Brazil, investigating the territorial defense

for the specie; characterizing its distribution and use of feeding habitat, and analyzing the

influences of the territorial defense over the foraging investment and success.

Materials and methods

Study area - The study was conducted in the Complexo Estuarino Lagunar de Iguape-

Cananéia, which is a great estuarine-lagoon system, of approximately 110Km of extension, in

the south coast of São Paulo state in southeastern Brazil (from 25° 00` to 25° 04` S and 47°

54` to 47° 56` E). This system is formed by three islands: Ilha de Cananéia, Ilha Comprida

and Ilha do Cardoso, which forms channels and lagoons that are connected to the open sea

(Fig 1a).

The predominant vegetation in the channels is the mangroves, composed by three

main species: black mangrove, Avicennia schaueriana; red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle;

and white mangrove, Laguncularia racemosa (Schaeffer-Novelli, Mesquita & Conturón-

Molero 1990). The mud banks are very common on the channels margins, and are margined

by a few species of the Poaceae gender Spartina, which are adapted to live in estuarine

21

regions (Schaeffer-Novelli, Mesquita & Conturón-Molero 1990). These mud banks are under

the influence of the tidal cycles, been exposed by the low tide and covered by the hight tide.

A specific mud bank in the island Ilha de Cananéia, called Brocuanha mud bank, was

used for this study. It is located in the south portion of the island, close to the city, and it has

approximately 1500m of extension by 110m width (▲, in Fig 1a). This area is used as a

feeding site by different species of herons and egrets throughout the year.

Determination of the actuation areas - To determine the actuation area of different

individuals, an area of approximately 12600m² of the Brocuanha mud bank was demarcated

with 24 wood stacks – with dimensions of 1.50m or 2.50m of extension and 5cm of thickness

– painted with minium for durability. A small wood plaque – 15x10x4cm – also recovered

with minium and painted and numbered with oil ink was placed on the point of each stack.

The stacks were fixed on the mud bank, during the hight tide with the help of a bout,

in three lines parallel to the margin. To the first line, closest to the margin, 8 stacks of 1.50m

were used, and placed 30m away from each other. The other two lines were placed using 8

stacks of 2.50m for each one. The second line was 30m away from the first and the third also

30m away from the second, in the direction of the water channel. As in the first line, the

stacks were placed 30m away from each other, forming 14 quadrants of 30x30m each, in two

lines of seven quadrants, side by side (e.g., Fig. 1b). The observation point is in a pier already

existent, which was used as reference for measuring the distance of the first couple of stacks,

thus been located in the center of the demarcated area. By this quadrants distribution it is

possible to access the distribution of individuals inside a specific area of the feeding site.

22

Figure 1.a) Map of part of the Iguape-Cananéia estuarine lagoon system, southeastern Brazil,

sowing the Brocuanha mud bank (▲). b) Scheme of the demarcated area with the two lines of

seven quadrants (30x30m). The three sectors are represented by the areas between the

horizontal lines.

The procedures to determine the actuation areas of different individuals were as

follows. The observation was divided into 30min period sessions (chosen arbitrarily because it

was a period of time which allowed a significant quantity of data to the analysis, without

1 2 3

9 10 11

4 5 6

12 13 14 15

7 8

16

24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17

OBSERVATION POINT

SECTOR 1

SECTOR 2

SECTOR 3

B

23

being overwhelming on the observer). In each session, the individuals using the demarcated

area (mean=9.17, Lower95%=8.45, Uper95%=9.89) to forage were accompanied,

simultaneously and by naked eyes (during the whole time the individual stayed inside the

area), and its trajectory would be continuously registered in a sheet with the quadrants

disposition. This is possible doe to the foraging method of the specie, that is by a continuously

slow walking (locomotion of ≤ 1 step/sec, cf. Rodgers 1983). By the beginning of the session,

each individual inside the demarcated area received an identification number, for its

identification on the work sheet, and its trajectories were registered until the end of the

session or until the individual leaved the demarcated area. When an individual would leave

the demarcated area, it would no longer be registered, and every time a new individual would

enter the demarcated area, it would begin to be registered. It is important to establish that the

individuals were not captured and marked artificially; they were only differentiated from each

other by the observer by its location in the demarcated area. Combining up the low number of

individuals simultaneously foraging inside the demarcated area (mean=9.17,

Lower95%=8.45, Uper95%=9.89) and the slow walking method of foraging by the specie, the

accompaniment of the individuals foraging simultaneously in the demarcated area and the

registration of their trajectories was possible. As the individuals were not marked, it could be

possible that one individual that eventually lived the demarcated area and returned yet in the

same session would be registered twice, and this probably has happened a few times during

the study.

The determination of the actuation area of the different individuals was made using the

minimum convex polygon method (MCP). The data from the polygons was than transferred to

the software AutoCAD LT 2004 for the determination of the sizes of the actuation areas of the

different individuals. With the sizes of the areas was possible to calculate both the sizes of the

overlapped areas between individuals and the overlapping percentage between them. For this

24

quantification were used only the data from the individuals that spend more than 66,66%, or

20min, of the session time (30min) foraging inside the demarcated area, to have a significant

quantity of data for each individual.

Determination of foraging parameters - According to Kushlan (1978a) the foraging effort,

and consequently the energy expenditure of foraging Little Blue Heron can be assessed by the

number of steps that an individual takes in one minute and also by the number of stabs that it

gives in one minute. And the foraging success of an individual can be assessed by the number

of catches in one minute and by the rate of catches per stabs. Following this method, we

collected data for all these parameters from the Little Blue Herons foraging in the Brocuanha

mud bank. These data were collected from individuals foraging in three different areas in the

mud bank. The first was the area between the first and second lines of stacks of the

demarcated area, and designated sector 1. The second was the area between the second and

third lines of stacks, been it the sector 2. And the area behind the third line of stacks

comprehended the sector 3 (e.g., Fig. 1b). The sectors 1 and 2 together comprehend about half

of the mud bank width, and the sector 3 about the other half.

Results

The study had a total of 120 hours, from May 2005 to February 2006. The number of

individuals decreased trough ought the study period (Fig 2).

25

m j j a s o n d j f0

50

100

150

200

250

Months of study

Me

an n

um

ber

of

ind

ivid

ual

s

Figure 2. Mean ± SD number of Little Blue Herons present in the mud bank area trough the

ten studied months.

Foraging Parameters - For all four foraging parameters it was performed the Kruskal-Wallis

one way ANOVA test to comparisons between the three sectors, with statistical significance

considered at α=0.05.

The individuals foraging in the sector 1 and 2 made less capture effort. The number of

steps per minute (sector 1 - 45.21 ± 14.96; sector 2 – 44.19 ± 13.63: n-number of observations

=335, H=18.20, P<0,05) and the number of stabs per minute (sector 1 – 3.65 ±2.55; sector 2 –

3.25 ± 2.93: n=335, H=21,19, P<0,05) for these individuals were significantly lower than for

those individuals foraging in the sector 3 (51.22 ± 14.37 steps/min; 4.94 ± 3.28 stabs/min)

(Figs. 3a, b). On the contrary, the individuals foraging in the sector 3 had less foraging

success. The number of catches per minute (n=318, H=21.95, P<0,05) and the rate of catches

per stabs (n=318, H=39.30, P<0,05) for individuals of the sector 3 (1.00 ± 1.37 catches/min;

0.21 ± 0.27 catches/stabs) were significantly lower than for those individuals foraging in

sectors 1 (1.52 ± 1.14 catches/min; 0.45 ± 0.31 catches/stabs) and 2 (1.45 ± 1.37 catches/min;

0.44 ± 0.36 catches/stabs) (Figs 3c, d).

26

A

1 2 30

20

40

60

80

100

Sectors

Num

ber

of

step

s / m

in

B

1 2 30

5

10

15

20

Sectors

Nu

mbe

r of

sta

bs /

min

C

1 2 30

2

4

6

8

Sectors

Num

ber

of c

atch

es /

min

D

1 2 30.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Sectors

Nu

mb

er

of c

atch

es /

stab

s

Figure 3.a) Number of steps from the individuals of Little Blue Heron foraging in the three

different sectors in the mud bank, in the Cananéia estuary. b) Number of stabs from the

individuals of Little Blue Heron foraging in the three different sectors in the mud bank. c)

Number of catches from the individuals of Little Blue Heron foraging in the three different

sectors in the mud bank. d) Success rate (catches/stabs) from the individuals foraging in the

three different sectors in the mud bank. Values are given as median, with the whiskers

representing minimum to maximum value.

Territoriality - Inside the demarcated area, one individual holding a feeding territory was

observed every day. This individual would arrive in the area in the beginning of the feeding

period, when the low tide had begun to expose the mud bank, and stayed defending a

27

particular area, never leaving this area, until the end of the feeding period, when the hight tide

had already covered the mud bank.

All the other individuals in the demarcated area would not exhibit this kind of

behavior, been non-territorial. These individuals would also arrive in the beginning of the

feeding period and stay until its end, but they would occupy the same areas, simultaneously

and not exhibiting a defense behavior. The territorial individual expelled any other individuals

that would enter on the patrolled area (Fig. 4c), being adults as well as immature ones. In the

Figures 4a and b there are the representation of two of the 30min observation periods, in with

are represented in black the territorial individual, and in grey the non-territorial individuals

that utilized the area in these observational sessions. The area defended by the territorial

individual was in the mud bank area closest to the mangrove, occupying the sector 1 and part

of the sector 2.

TERRITORIAL

NON-TERRITORIAL

A

28

TERRITORIAL

NON-TERRITORIAL

Figure 4. a/b) The results of two 30min observation sessions taken to determine the actuation

areas of different Little Blue Heron individuals foraging in the demarcated area, in the

Cananéia estuary. c) Representation of the entire area occupied by the territorial individual

trough the study period and the area of most exclusive use.

In table 1 are presented the results for the sizes of the actuation areas of the territorial

and non-territorial individuals, as well as the sizes and percentages of the overlapped areas

between the territorial individual and the non-territorial, and between the non-territorial

individuals themselves. It was chosen to perform the non-parametric Wilcoxon test, because

B

C

29

the variances between the two groups were considered too different (Bartlett test F=176.47,

P<0.05) and the N of the groups were also very different. It can be observed that the total

area for the territorial individual is bigger than that of the non-territorial ones (n=1096, Z=-

10.01, P<0.05), and that the overlapping percentage of area is small for the territorial

individual than for the non-territorial ones.

The total area patrolled by the territorial individual was of approximately 8800.56m².

The defended area, the one it was successful in keeping others entirely out was of about

1849.64m². The area patrolled by the territorial individual corresponds to approximately

5.87% of the mud bank area (approximately 150000m²) (see Fig 4c). If we consider the

average number of individuals feeding in the mud bank (137 individuals) from May to August

(the months that had more individuals), than the area per individual, out the 1849.64m² of the

territorial one, is about 1081.39m².

Pearson’s correlation was performed (n=120, r=0.03, df= 46, P>0.05) between the

average number of individuals in the demarcated area (mean=9.17, lower95%=8.45,

uper95%=9.89) and the average of overlapped area for the territorial individual (Table 1), and

the average number of overlapping between the territorial individual and the non-territorial

ones (mean=2.85, lower95%=2.33, uper95%=3.38) (n=120, r=0.14, df=46, P>0.05). A week

correlation between the number of overlapping between the territorial individual and the non-

territorial ones and the average of overlapped area for the territorial individual was observed

(n=120,r=0.47,df=46,P<0.05).

In 100% of the days from May to August, a territorial individual was present in the

mud bank, always defending the same area (Figs. 4a,b,c). But from September to December a

territorial individual was absent, that is, no defense was observed.

30

Tab

le 1

. Val

ues

on th

e si

zes

of a

ctua

tion

are

as f

or th

e te

rrit

oria

l and

non

-ter

rito

rial

indi

vidu

als

(ave

rage

tota

l are

a); a

vera

ge o

verl

appe

d

area

bet

wee

n th

e no

n-te

rrit

oria

l in

divi

dual

s an

d th

e te

rrit

oria

l, an

d be

twee

n th

e no

n-te

rrit

oria

l am

ong

each

oth

er;

and

the

over

lapp

ing

perc

enta

ge f

or th

e te

rrit

oria

l and

non

-ter

rito

rial

indi

vidu

als.

For

the

feed

ing

Litt

le B

lue

Her

on i

n C

anan

éia,

sou

thea

ster

n B

razi

l. T

he n

valu

es r

egar

d th

e 30

min

per

iod

sess

ions

of

data

col

lect

ion.

n

aver

age

tota

l are

a

(m²)

SD

low

er

95%

uper

95%

aver

age

over

lapp

ed

area

( m

²)

SD

low

er

95%

uper

95%

over

lapp

ing

perc

enta

ge

(%)

SD

low

er

95%

uper

95%

terr

itor

ial

120

2564

.46

943.

5623

75.7

1 27

53.2

117

1.41

* 13

1.40

144.

78

198.

03

8.48

5.

90

7.30

9.

66

non-

terr

itor

ial

976

893.

25

676.

7283

0.99

95

7.51

63

3.98

56

0.67

580.

58

687.

37

66.8

0 22

.71

64.6

568

.96

* T

he b

oldf

ace

valu

es r

egar

d th

e av

erag

e of

the

data

sta

tisti

call

y te

sted

wit

h th

e W

ilco

xon-

test

.

31

Discussion

It is know for the populations of Little Blue Heron of the North hemisphere that

migration occurs from feeding sites to colony sites, and the other way around (Dusi 1967).

Richner (1986) observed the abandonment of feeding territories at the start of the breeding

season for the Grey Heron. Therefore, the decreasing in the number of individuals, especially

from August might be related to a migration to the reproductive areas. This specie is yet

starting to be better studied in Brazil, and the colony sites and the dislocation of individuals

from different areas as to feeding sites or colony sites, it is not know. But this hypothesis

seems to be very plausible, because as the observed in the results of the present study, there is

a possible abandonment of a territorial individual from the area in the reproductive months

(September to December) and a possible return in the end of the reproductive period

(January). The territorial individual was always an adult, and so, probably a reproductive one.

The colony sites are not know yet, but from our observations of the decreasing in the

number of individuals and the absence of a territorial individual in the reproductive months, it

can be argued that probably the colony sites are too distant from the Brocuanha mud bank;

since it is accepted that the proximity to the feeding areas is an important factor for the

selection of breeding sites in herons and egrets (Gibbs et al. 1987). According to Custer and

Osborn (1978), herons must feed within a certain range of the colony; a distance at which it is

energetically feasible for they to fly between foraging areas and the colony. Then, since there

is an abandonment of the area during the reproductive period, it is possible that the new

feeding area is close to the colony.

Territoriality is difficult to prove because of the tenuous difference between

aggressive behavior of a territorial individual and the defense of individual distances among

individuals (Marion 1989). To demonstrate the territoriality in herons one needs to follow

identifiable individuals over a significant period with a marking system that can be located

from distance (Marion 1989). However, with the method used here, we were able to

32

demonstrate the territoriality of the Little Blue Heron without having to mark individual birds,

and from a very close distance of the feeding site and the birds. This is probably because the

behavior of the species in the area is very docile in the sense of permitting the presence of the

observer, and also because of the very fixed way of using the feeding site by the territorial

individual.

The method of stakes can give us a size of the territory very close to the real, since the

points used to create the polygon are taken from the observation of the trajectory of one

individual been accompanied by the observer eyes at a whole period of time. Different from

the territory and home range sizes established from spot observations of the male or the

reproductive pair of a bird species or the various capture points of a mammal (Odum &

Kuenzler 1955).

Our observations here lead to define the territorial individual as such for its behavior is

attending the three simultaneous conditions proposed by Brown and Orians (1970) as

necessary to be met when attempting to show territoriality. The first says that a territory must

show a slow change over time, or be fixed; what was very clear for the Little Blue Heron in

here. The second is about exclusivity and that was another condition verified here. And the

third condition, which was also observed in our study, is the active or passive defense of the

area against rivals.

Since the territorial behavior of the Little Blue Heron was observed out of the

reproductive station, corresponding to the winter, it can be suggested that this territory is a

kind of winter territory (or type E), and it is used in the feeding ground (Nice 1941; Wilson

1975).

The concept of economic defendability proposed by Brown (1964) and its outcome on

the evolution and adaptive significance of territoriality is a more accepted solution in

explaining the diversity of territorial systems in different species (as discussed by Verner

1977). In the lights of Darwin’s natural selection theory, this concept brings the relevance of

33

the individual’s behavior in enhancing its survival and reproduction, as well as its

contribution to the next generation’s gene pool, or its inclusive fitness (Alcock 2005). As said

by Davis and Houston (1984), “the concept of economic defendability states that we would

only expect an animal to spend time and energy interacting with others to defend a territory

when this yields greater net benefits than an alternative behavior, for example ignoring others

in the population and spending the whole time exploiting the resource”. If, aside the defended

area (restrict use) of the territorial individual, the other individuals feeding in the mud bank

have been left with approximately 1081.39m² of area per individual foraging; and if, as

observed by us, more territorial individuals would exist in the mud bank, then these areas

could be even smaller and almost totally overlapped (increase of overlapping in the use of

resources among individuals). Thus, the territorial behavior of a territorial individual could

actually be paying off, since it defends an area of exclusive use bigger than the area available

for each non-territorial individual, and in an area within the mud bank that could have more

prey available (see discussion below).

Since we are yet in the beginning of the studies on the territorial behavior of the Little

Blue Heron, it is a presumption to think that we would have answers regarding a more general

and wide-ranging solution in trying to explain the adaptiveness or evolution of this system.

But we can try to begin to understand a few reasons that might lead an individual Little Blue

Heron to defend a particular area in a mud bank, in a very productive estuary. Since we are

looking at a feeding territory, what it is been defended here is the food resource, and the

access to it. According to Brown and Orians (1970) it is generally assumed that food is the

defended resource when territories are established away from the breeding area. Davis and

Houston (1984) point that one of three factors favoring territoriality is the resource quality

and distribution. One of many reasons that can derive an animal to defend a certain portion of

a feeding site is the hight availability of prey at this area, what can bring it more prey with

less energy expenditure (Davis 1978). Varoli and Souza (1990) in a study of the benthonic

34

macro fauna in a series of mud banks in the Iguape-Cananéia estuarine-lagoon system found

that the areas closest to the margin (or the mangroves) have greater numbers of polychaetes,

mollusks, isopods, decapods, among others. These organisms form a rich prey source for

herons and other bird species. Our data on the foraging parameters shows that the area

comprehending the sectors 1 and 2, what correspond to approximately half of the mud bank

width, brings to the individuals foraging inside it greater gains with less energy expenditure

than the individuals foraging in the other half, comprehending the sector 3. The area of the

territorial individual extends from the sector 1 to a part of the sector 2, what comprehends

exactly the area pointed for Varoli and Souza (1990) as the area with more availability of prey

in the mud banks. This suggests that territorial birds defend patches of abundant food

resources which might confer unique energetic benefits to the territorial individual, as

observed by Turpie (1995) and Tripp and Collazo (1997). This can be one of many possible

explanations to account the reasons for why an individual defends an area in the Brocuanha

mud bank, as observed by us and exhibited in here.

The correlations don’t denote a cause and effect relationship, but they can be used to

some considerations. It is intuitive to think that there would be some relation between the

number of individuals and the number of overlaps between the territorial and non-territorial

individuals, and the mean size of the overlapping between them. As to think that much more

individuals present in the area, an increase of the density of individuals (potential

competitors) would increase these relations, as observed by some researchers in studies of

intruder’s pressure on territory size (Myers, Connors & Pitelka 1979; Ewald, Hunt & Warner

1980; Norton, Arcese & Ewald 1982; Dunk & Cooper 1994; Tripp & Collazo 1997; Wronski

& Plath 2006). But it seams that maybe this is not the case here for the Little Blue Heron.

Following this line of thought, on the other hand, the positive correlation found between the

number of overlapping and the mean size of the overlapped area for the territorial individual

might be cautiously interpreted as mining that a possible increase in the number of individuals

35

in the area might increase the size of the total area that the intruders might occupy inside the

territorial individuals area. These results might suggest that the intruder density does not have

such an important role in the territorial behavior of the Little Blue Heron; and that some

characteristics of the preys play a more expressive role (see discussion on this subject in

Myers, Connors & Pitelka 1979; Hixon 1980; Tripp & Collazo 1997).

The territoriality in colonial birds is wide accepted (Nice 1941), principally

concerning the reproductive period, considering the area surrounding the nest the territory.

But true feeding territories have been prove to exist for the Little Egret (Yamada 1994; Nota

2003), the Grey Heron (Richner 1986; Marion 1989), the Reef Heron (Recher 1972), as we

also found for the Little Blue Heron. Hancock and Kushlan (1984) affirm that the Goliath

Heron, Ardea goliath, the Black Heron, Egretta ardesiaca, the Tricolored Heron, Egretta

tricolor, and the Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax, also exhibits feeding

territoriality. And Lowe (1983) observed also the White-faced Heron, Egretta

novaehollandiae, defending feeding territories in mudflat areas. But actual data confirming

these observations is unclear. Yet, Kushlan et al. (1982) suggests possible holding of feeding

territories by Whistling Herons, Sirigma sibilatrix. For the Little Blue Heron, Palmer (1962)

wrote that individuals vigorously defend feeding territories out of the reproductive period. As

in the cases above, this is yet too little information to affirm the true existence of feeding

territories for the species. But with the results in here, this existence became real.

Our results show that in one day of observation, the individual defending the territory

in the mud bank is always the same, since it arrived at the beginning of the feeding period and

stayed until its end. Future studies should consider marking individual birds that frequent the

feeding site to access the possible fidelity of area throughout an entire season.

36

Acknowledgments

We thank the Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC) for all the support, with material, field

assistance and logistic. And we also thank the engineer Thelicia Silva for the support with the

AutoCAD LT 2004 software. Finantial support, in form of a scholarship, is acknowledged

from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

References

Alcock, J. (2005) Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer Associates Inc.,

Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Brown, J. L. (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bulletin,

76, 160-169.

Brown, J. L. & Orians, G. H. (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annual Revue of

Ecological Syztematics, 1, 239-262.

Caldwell, G. S. (1981) Attraction to tropical mixed-species heron flocks: Proximate

mechanisms and consequences. Behavioural Ecology Sociobiology, 8, 99-103.

Caldwell, G. S. (1986) Predation as selective force on foraging herons: Effect of plumage

color and flocking. Auk, 103, 494-505.

Custer, T. W. & Osborn, R. G. (1978) Feeding habitat use by colonially-breeding herons,

egrets and ibises in North Carolina. Auk, 95, 733-743.

Davis, N. B. (1978) Ecological questions about territorial behaviour. Behavioural Ecology:

An Evolutionary Approach (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davis), pp. 245-281. Blackwell Scientific

Publications, Oxford.

Davis, N. B. & Houston, A. I. (1984) Territory economics. Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davis), pp. 148-169. Blackwell Scientific


37

Dunk, J. G. & Cooper, R. J. (1994) Territory-size regulation in Black-shouldered Kites. Auk,

111, 588-595.

Dusi, J. L. (1967) Migration in the Little Blue Heron. Wilson Bulletin, 79, 223-235.

Erwin, R. M. (1983) Feeding habitats of nesting wading birds: Spatial use and social

influences. Auk, 100, 960-970.

Ewald, P. W., Hunt, G. L., Jr. & Warner, M. (1980) Territory size in Western Gulls:

Importance of intrusion pressure, defense investments, and vegetation structure. Ecology, 61,

80-87.

Gibbs, J. P., Woodward, S., Hunter, M. L. & Hutchinson, A. E. (1987). Determinants of Great

Blue Heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk, 104, 38-47.

Hixon, M. A. (1980) Food production and competitor density as the determinants of feeding

territory size. The American Naturalist, 115, 510-530.

Kelly, J. F., Gawlik, D. F. & Kieekbusch, D. K. (2003) An updated account of wading bird

foraging behavior. Wilson Bulletin, 115, 105-107.

Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. (1993) An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Kushlan, J. A., Hancock, J. A., Pinowski, J. & Pinowska, B. (1982) Behavior of Whistling

and Capped Herons in the Seasonal Savannas of Venezuela and Argentina. Condor, 84, 255-

260.

Kushlan, J. A. (1976) Feeding behavior of North American herons. Auk, 93, 86-94.

Kushlan, J. A. (1977) The significance of plumage colour in the formation of feeding

aggregations of Ciconiiforms. Ibis, 119, 361-364.

Kushlan, J. A. (1978a) Commensalisms in the Little Blue Heron. Auk, 95, 677-681.

Kushlan, J. A. (1978b) Feeding ecology of wading birds. Wading birds (eds A. Sprunt, J. C.

Ogden & S. Winckler), pp. 249-297. Report 7 of the National Audubon Society, New York,

New York.

38

Kushlan, J. A. (1979) Feeding ecology and prey selection in the With Ibis. Condor, 81, 376-

389.

Kushlan, J. A. (1981) Resource use strategies of wading birds. Wilson Bulletin, 93, 145-163.

Lowe, K.W. (1983) Feeding behaviour and diet of the White-faced Heron Ardea

novaehollandiae in Westernport Bay, Victoria. Corella, 7, 101-108.

Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. (1995). Definitions of territory used in the study of variation in

vertebrate spacing system. Animal Behaviour, 49, 1581-1597.

Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. (2000) A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within

vertebrate species. American Midland Naturalist, 143, 1-29.

Marion, L. (1989) Territorial feeding and colonial breeding are not mutually exclusive: The

case of the Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea). Journal of Animal Ecology, 58, 693-710.

Myers, J. P., Connors, P. G. & Pitelka, F. A. (1979) Territory size in wintering sanderlings:

The effect of prey abundance and intruder pressure. Auk, 96, 551-561.

Nice, M. M. (1941) The role of territory in bird life. American Midland Naturalist, 26, 441-

487.

Noble, G. K. (1939) The role of dominance in the life of birds. Auk, 56, 263-273.

Norton, M. E., Arcese, P. & Ewald, P. W. (1982) Effect of intrusion pressure on territory size

in Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri). Auk, 99, 761-764.

Nota, Y. (2003) Effects of body size and sex on foraging territoriality of the Little Egret

(Egretta garzeta) in Japan. Auk, 120, 791-798.

Odun, E. P. & Kuenzler, E. J. (1955) Measurement of territory and home range size in birds.

Auk, 72, 128-137.

Olmos, F., Silva e Silva, R. & Prado, A. (2001) Breeding season diet of Scarlet Ibises

Eudocimus ruber and Little Blue Herons Egretta caerulea in a Brazilian mangrove.

Waterbirds, 24, 50-57.

39

Olmos, F. & Silva e Silva, R. (2002) Breeding biology of the Little Blue Heron (Egretta

caerulea) in southeastern Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical, 13, 17-30.

Palmer, R. S. (1962) Handbook of North American Birds, Vol I: Loons through Flamingos.

Yale University Press, New Haven.

Pyle, P., & Howell, S. G. (2004) Ornamental plume development and the “prealternate molts”

of herons and egrets. Wilson Bulletin, 116, 287-292.

Recher, H. F. (1972) Territorial behaviour of the Reef Heron Egretta sacra. Emu, 72, 126-

130.

Recher, H. F. & Recher, J. A. (1969) Comparative foraging efficiency of adult and immature

Little Blue Heron (Florida caerulea). Animal Behaviour, 17, 320-322.

Richner, H. (1986) Winter feeding strategies of individually marked herons. Animal

Behaviour, 34, 881-886.

Ricklefs, R. E. (2001) The Economy of Nature. W. H. Freeman, New York.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. (1980a). Breeding ecology of the Little Blue Heron on the west coast of

Florida. Condor, 82, 164-169.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. (1980b) Little Blue Heron breeding behavior. Auk, 97, 371-384.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. (1983). Foraging behavior of seven species of herons in Tampa Bay,

Florida. Colonial Waterbirds, 6, 11–23.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. (1987) Breeding chronology and reproductive success of Cattle Egrets and

Little Blue Herons on the west coast of Florida, USA. Colonial Waterbirds, 10, 38–44.

Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., Mesquita, H. S. L. & Cinturón-Molero, G. (1990) The Cananéia

Lagoon Estuarine System, São Paulo, Brazil. Estuaries, 13, 193-203.

Sick, H. (1997) Ornitologia Brasileira, Uma Introdução. Editora Nova fronteira S. A., Rio de

Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Smith, J. P. (1995) Foraging flights and habitat use of nesting wading birds (Ciconiiformes) at

Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Colonial Waterbirds, 18, 139-158.

40

Tripp, K. J. & Collazo, J. A. (1997) Non-breeding territoriality of semipalmated sandpipers.

Wilson Bulletin, 109, 630-642.

Turpie, J. K. (1995) Non-breeding territoriality: Causes and consequences of seasonal and

individual variation in grey plover Pluvialis squatarola behaviour. The Journal of Animal

Ecology, 64, 429-438.

Varoli, F. M. F. & Suosa, E. C. P. M.. (1990) Macrofauna e biomassa microfitobentônica da

região estuarino-lagunar de Iguape-Cananéia (25º00’S – 48º00’W), São Paulo, Brasil. II

Simpósio de Ecossistemas da costa Sul e Sudeste Brasileira: Estrutura, Função e Manejo, 2,

95-107.

Verner, J. (1977) On the adaptive significance of territoriality. The American Naturalist, 111,

769-775.

Werschkul, D. F. (1979) Nestling mortality and the adaptive significance of early locomotion

in the Little Blue Heron. Auk, 96, 116-130.

Werschkul, D. F. (1982) Nesting ecology of the Little Blue Heron: Promiscuous behavior.

Condor, 82, 381-384.

Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology. Belknap Press, Harvard.

Willard, D. E. (1977) The feeding ecology and behavior of five species of herons in

southeastern New Jersey. Condor, 79, 462–470.

Wronski, T. & Plath, M. 2006. Mate availability and intruder pressure as determinants of

territory size in male bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Acta Ethologica, 9, 37-42.

Yamada, K. (1994) Feeding behavior and territoriality according to the prey types and

habitats in the Little Egret Egretta garzeta. Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 6, 36-68.

41

O autor Emygdio L. A. Monteiro-Filho colaborou desde o início do trabalho, no ano de 2005.

Ajudando com a elaboração do projeto, assim como da dissertação e dos manuscritos,

contribuindo para a discussão dos resultados encontrados e suas relações com espectos

comportamentais e ecológicos. Esteve sempre presente, disponibilizando na forma de sua

pessoa ou do Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC), material bibliográfico e ajuda com a

logistica do trabalho de campo.

Journal of Animal Ecology – Formatação.

Standard Papers

A standard paper should not normally be longer than 10 printed pages (8500 words).

(A page of printed text, without figures/tables carries c. 800 words.) The passive voice is

preferred in describing methods and results. The active voice may be used occasionally to

emphasize a personal opinion (typically in Introduction and Discussion sections). The

typescript should be arranged as follows, with each section starting on a separate page.

Title page. This should contain:

1. A concise and informative title (as short as possible). Do not include the authorities

for taxonomic names in the title. Titles with numerical series designations (I, II, III,

etc.) are acceptable provided the editors agreement is sought and that at least Part II of

the series has been submitted and accepted before Part I is sent to the printer. Such

series must begin in one of the journals of the BES.

2. A list of authors' names with names and addresses of Institutions.

3. The name, address and e-mail address of the correspondence author to whom proofs

will be sent.

4. A running headline of not more than 45 characters.

Summary. This should list the main results and conclusions, using simple, factual, numbered

statements. It must not exceed 350 words.

Key-words. A list in alphabetical order not exceeding five words or short phrases. Please

pay attention to the keywords you select. Keywords should not already appear in the title or

abstract. Rather they should be selected to draw in readers from wider areas that might not

otherwise pick up your paper when they are using search engines.

Introduction. This should state the reason for doing the work, the nature of the hypothesis or

hypotheses under consideration, and should outline the essential background.

42

Materials and methods. This should provide sufficient details of the techniques to enable the

work to be repeated. Do not describe or refer to commonplace statistical tests in Methods but

allude to them briefly in Results.

Results. This should state the results, drawing attention in the text to important details shown

in tables and figures.

Discussion. This should point out the significance of the results in relation to the reasons for

doing the work, and place them in the context of other work.

Acknowledgements

References (see Specifications).

Tables (see Specifications). These should be referred to in the text as Table 1, etc. Do not

present the same data in both figure and table form.

Figure legends (see Specifications). Figures should be referred to in the text as Fig. 1, etc.

(note Figs 1 and 2 with no period).

Illustrations (see Specifications) should be referred to as Figures.

Figure legends

Legends should be grouped on a separate sheet. Furnish enough detail so that the

figure can be understood without reference to the text. In the full-text online edition of the

journal, figure legends may be truncated in abbreviated links to the full screen version.

Therefore, the first 100 characters of any legend should inform the reader of key aspects of

the figure.

Tables

Each table should be on a separate page, numbered and accompanied by a title at the

top.

References

References to work by up to three authors in the text should be in full on first mention,

e.g. (Able, Baker & Charles 1996), and subsequently abbreviated (Able et al. 1996). When

different groups of authors with the same first author and date occur, they should be cited

thus: (Able, Baker & Charles 1996a; Able David & Edwards 1996b), then subsequently

abbreviated to (Able et al. 1996a, b). If the number of authors exceeds three, they should

always be abbreviated thus: (Frank et al. 1996). The references in the list should be in

alphabetical order with the journal name in full. The format for papers, entire books, chapters

in books, and PhD theses is as follows.

43

Holyoak, M. (1993) New insights into testing for density dependence. Oecologia, 93, 435-

440.

Warham, J. (1996) The Behaviour, Population Biology and Physiology of the Petrels.

Academic Press, London.

Møller, A.P. (1997) Parasitism and the evolution of host life history. Host-Parasite Evolution

(eds D.H. Clayton & J. Moore), pp. 105-127. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Stevenson, I.R. (1994) Male-biased mortality in Soay sheep. PhD thesis, University of

Cambridge, Cambridge.

44

Manuscrito 2

Título – Comportamento Social da Garça–azul, ao Forrageio, no Sudeste do Brasil.

Autores - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio José de Lima Silva2 and Emygdio Leite de








Periódico – Journal of Ethology, QUALIS A.


45

Resumo

O comportamento social da garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, tem sido estudado somente no

período reprodutivo (posturas e comportamentos associados à reprodução). Os

comportamentos/posturas associados às interações de garças forrageando nas áreas de

alimentação ainda não foram estudados mais detalhadamente. Desta forma, o objetivo deste

estudo é apresentar uma análise descritiva das interações entre conspecíficos alimentando-se

em agregação, em um baixio lodoso, no sudeste do Brasil. Os métodos ad libitum e

amostragem comportamental foram utilizados para a descrição dos comportamentos. Quatro

tipos de posturas foram identificados; duas previamente descritos (Asas-espalhadas –

“Spread-wings” e Agachada – “Withdraw Crouch”) e duas novas (Estendida – “Extended” e

Asas alinhadas – “Wings Lined-up”). Uma vocalização, o chamado Ahh-ahh-ahh; e quatro

tipos de interações entre dois ou mais indivíduos, envolvendo ou não as posturas: i) Encontro;

ii) Briga; iii) Expulsão, e iv) Cleptoparasitismo. Todos estes comportamentos estão

relacionados, direta ou indiretamente, à dominância de uma área em particular, por um

indivíduo, contendo recurso alimentar. Isto aponta para a importância das interações sociais

entre garças forrageando, enquanto alimentam-se em grandes números em agregações

situadas em áreas ecologicamente importantes.

46

Title - Social Behavior of Foraging Little Blue Heron in Southeastern Brazil.

Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio José de Lima Silva2 and Emygdio Leite de Araujo

Monteiro-Filho3.

1 – Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia – Estudos do Comportamento, Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), PO Box 1511, Natal, RN, 59078-970, Brazil.

Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC), 199 Tristão Lobo, Centro, Cananéia, SP, 11.990-000,

Brazil.


Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN).

Laboratório de sistemática e Ecologia Animal, Dept. de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade do

Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Mossoró, RN, Brazil.

3 – Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Centro Politécnico,

Universidade Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Curitiba, PR, 81.531-990, Brazil. Instituto

de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC).

Total text pages: 24

Number of tables and figures: 5

Send proofs to: Emmanuel Moralez-Silva – 3460 Alameda dos Bosques, Parque das

Nascentes, Pinhais, PR, 83.320-970, Brazil, [email protected]. Telephone: 55 41

3669 7506, fax: 55 41 3668 3412.

47

Abstract

The social behavior of the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, has been studied only during

the breeding period (displays associated to the breeding behavior). The displays associated to

the interactions of foraging herons in the feeding grounds have not yet been studied more

detailed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to present a descriptive analysis of the interactions

between conspecifics feeding in an aggregation, in a mud bank, in southeast Brazil. The

methods of ad libitum and behavioral sampling were used to describe the behaviors. Four

types of display postures were identified, two previously described in the literature (Spread-

wings and Withdraw Crouch) and two new ones (Extended and Wings Lined-up). One

vocalization, the Ahh-ahh-ahh call. And four types of interactions between two or more

individuals, involving or not the display postures: i) Encounter; ii) Fight; iii) Expulsion, and

iv) Kleptoparasitism. All these behaviors are related, direct or indirectly, to the dominance of

a particular area of food resource by one individual. And then, pointing out to the importance

of the social interactions between foraging herons, as they feed in great numbers on

aggregations in ecologically important areas.

Key words: Cananéia estuarine system, Display postures, Dispute, Description, Herons,

Interactions.

48

Introduction

The term social can have several connotations, and different researchers use it in slightly

different manners. For ones, this term is used in a restrict sense, to animals that exhibit a

certain amount of familial dependence, those bearing elaborate behavioral displays, or those

living within demographically structured groups (Giraldeau and Caraco 2000). Others use the

term more widely, and consider being social any animal that spends a good part of its life in

groups that are open, unstructured and temporary (Giraldeau and Caraco 2000).

This discussion was most vigorous with the flowering of the classic Ethology, and

ethologists as Lorenz and Tinbergen tended to distinguish really social groups from

aggregations (gatherings of nonsocial animals). These aggregations would form accidentally;

while true social groups would form as a result of a genuine attraction between individuals

(Giraldeau and Caraco 2000).

Latter in the twenty century, the incorporation of the evolutionary perspective in the

study of the behavior, and the emerging of the Behavioral Ecology, bringing a more

ecological-evolutionary approach, this form of using the term social became more bonded to

the functional level (Krebs and Davis 1993). This evolutionary perspective of social groups is

more concerned that individuals in a group are interdependent and their actions has

consequences on their fitness gains and pay offs, operating on the costs and benefits of their

choices (Krebs and Davis 1991).

Therefore, and take to account that herons are known to form feeding aggregations at

proper sites (Kushlan 1981), these interactions can be considered as having a strong social

component. Various studies on the social feeding by herons and egrets had been done;

referring to its formation, structure and dynamics (Smith 1995, Master 1992, Erwin 1983,

1984, Kushlan et al. 1985, Kushlan 1976b, 1977).

Behavioral studies based on description are more numerous on the sexual repertory of

the social behavior of the species (Great Blue Heron, Ardea horodias – Mock 1976; Great

49

Egret, Ardea alba – Weise 1976 and Mock 1978; Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax

nycticorax – Noble et al. 1938 and Palmer 1962; Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Nyctanassa

violocea – Bagley and Grau 1979; Snowy Egret, Egretta thula – Meyerriecks 1960 and

Palmer 1962; Reddish Egret, Egretta rufescens - Meyerriecks 1960; Tricolored Heron,

Egretta tricolor – Rodgers 1977, 1978b; Cattle Egret, Bubulcus ibis – Blaker 1969 and

Lancaster 1970; and Green Heron, Butorides virescens - Meyerriecks 1960).

The behaviors related to the foraging activities are well described (Kushlan 1976a, 1978a)

and studied (Papakostas et al. 2005, Battley et al. 2003, Richardson et al. 2001, Powel 1987,

Rodgers 1983, Hafner et al. 1982, Willard 1977). Yet, the behavioral interactions of foraging

herons at the intra-specific level are not much studied, although some workers do consider it

in their work (Blaker 1969, Pratt 1980, Garrido et al. 2002, Lekuona 2002, González 1996,

Wiggins 1991, Kushlan 1978b, 1981, Krebs 1974, Custer and Osborn 1978). Only Bayer

(1984a, b) have focused a study on the foraging ground displays and associated vocalizations

with the Great Blue Heron.

For the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, the sexual behavior and the related vocal

array were well studied by Rodgers (1978a, 1980), and also by Meanley (1955), Meyerriecks

(1960), Palmer (1962) and Werschkul (1982). The species has also had the foraging behavior

well studied, as cited above for the other species; but the behavioral interactions of

conspecifics at feeding grounds have not been studied more detailed.

The goal of this study was to describe the behaviors performed by the Little Blue

Heron during social interactions in the foraging period: i) describe the display postures held

during the feeding period; ii) describe the vocalizations performed during the feeding period;

and iii) describe the interactions between individuals during this period.

50

Study area

The study was made from May 2005 to February 2006, in a mud bank in the Cananéia-Iguape

estuarine lagoon system, in the south coast of São Paulo state, southeastern Brazil (from 25°

00` to 25° 04` S and 47° 54` to 47° 56` E). The system is composed by three islands, forming

a series of channels and lagoons, connected to the open sea; been then under the influence of

the daily tidal cycles. The mangroves are the predominant vegetation in the system, and in the

margins of the channels a series of mud banks are exposed by the low tides, serving as

feeding sites for the avifauna (more detailed description and map in Moralez-Silva et al.

manuscrito 1). Aggregations of foraging Little Blue Heron are common in these sites, varying

from approximately 20 to 200 individuals throughout the year (Moralez-Silva et al.

manuscrito 1).

Methods

The methods of ad libitum and behavioral sampling (Martin and Bateson 1993, Altmann

1974) were used to describe the behaviors here presented. The observations were made in a

fixed point (an existent pier), during the day, in the full or new moon and in the hours of low

tide, by naked eye or using a 10x50 binoculars. During the observational period, every time

two or more individuals were engaged in any sort of interaction, these would become center

of the attention, and its behaviors were registered. The description was a mist of the empirical

and functional method (cf. Lehner 1998); and also in terms of the individuals spatial relation

to features of the environment or to other individuals (Martin and Bateson 1993). The

observed behaviors were photographed and video recorded when possible as well.

The recording of the vocalizations were made from the same point of the behavioral

data collection. The sounds were recorded using an analog cassette tape recorder (Panasonic

Mini Cassette Recorder RQ-L31) connected to a Sennheiser directional microphone at a speed

of 19 cm/s. The recorded sounds were reproduced for analysis using the Raven Pro 1.2.1

software (Cornell Lab of Ornithology), and the physical parameters were obtained.

51

The recorded vocalizations were transferred to the Raven software and transformed in

spectrograms. From these spectrograms the physical parameters were obtained: frequency,

time of duration (both from the entire call, and the notes and intervals between notes) and

number of notes and visible harmonics. Frequency modulation, intensity and the distribution

of the energy in the vocalization could also be obtained.

Results

There were a total of 150 hours of behavioral observations during the nine months of

study.

Four types of display postures and four types of interactions between two or more

individuals were identified, involving or not the display postures.

Display postures

Extended (n – number of observations of such behavior=63) – the individual keeps the body

erect, almost on the vertical, with the head and neck extended and the head in line with the

neck, slightly up, with the bill closed. The wings are held very close to the body. No feather

erection is observed (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Extended posture of Little Blue Heron in the Cananéia estuary feeding site.

52

Wings-lined-up (n=31) – the individual keeps the body horizontally to the ground, the neck

stretched and the head up, with the bill pointing upwards. One of the wings is lowered (the

one closest to the other individual), not passing the tarsometatarsus, and the other is pulled up

the back line. The rectrices are spread out on a medial length. No erection of the feather is

observed (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Wings-lined-up posture of Little Blue Heron in the Cananéia estuary feeding site.

Spread-wings (cf. Bayer 1984b) - The heron maintain the body in a position as in the

Extended posture, and keeps the wings outstretched from the body. No dragging of the

substrate during the motion of the display was observed. This display was observed a few

times, and in all of them, the individual displaying it was fleeing from another.

We distinguished these last two displays because they happened in distinct contexts. The

Wings-lined-up was observed preceding a fight, and the Spread-wings, in the few times

observed, was performed by a heron fleeing from a conflict. It was never observed a transition

from one to the other, both happening separately and in distinct interactions.

Withdraw Crouch (n=55) (cf. Meyerriecks 1960) - the individual keeps the body in a more

low profile, horizontally to the ground, and maintain the neck also curved with the head

53

parallel to the ground. The wings are slightly drooped, but not passing the tarsal length. By

this, part of the back is exposed. Feather erection dos not occur.

All postures are used in the context of interaction with other individual; not used

alone. In all of these postures, no vocalizations were associated, and these could not be missed

since the observer was generally closer then 30 m from the displaying herons.

Vocalizations

Calls of low frequency and variable in intensity were recorded. These calls, named Ahh-ahh-

ahh call, can contain three to 10 notes of similar duration and with distinct frequency

modulation, spaced by each other in a low variable interval duration (Table 1, Fig. 3). The

energy is concentrated in the first harmonics, and not in the fundamental note. These results

were gathered by analyzing 25 recorded vocalizations from different individuals.

It is used primarily by territorial herons, but can also be used by non-territorial ones. It

can be observed that approximately only 10 to 15% of the individuals foraging in the mud

bank utilize this vocalization. Two instances of its use were identified, after an Expulsion and

after a short flight within the foraging area of the individual.

Figure 3. Spectrogram of Ahh-ahh-ahh call of Little Blue heron, Egretta caerulea, recorded

along interactions in a mud bank in Cananéia estuarine system, southeastern Brazil.

54

Table 1. Ahh-ahh-ahh call emitted by the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, during social

foraging in the Cananéia estuary, southeastern Brazil, with numbers of notes and physical

parameters (frequency (Hz), time (s), and numbers of visible harmonics). Values are given as

the mean ± SE.

Frequency range

(Hz)

Average

visible

harmonics

Average

notes

Average

duration of the

call (s)

Average

notes (s)

Average intervals

between notes (s)

693.02±164.98

1243.76±331.19 4.88±2.26 4.83±1.83 2.90±1.56

0.36±

0.140.26±0.08

Interactions between individuals

Encounter (n=57) – observed between two individuals, during approximately 1 to 2 min. They

came in to close proximity, approximately 2 to 3m of each other, and then assume the display

posture; or one of them can assume the Extended posture and the other the Withdraw Crouch

posture in the beginning of the interaction. Another case is when both of the individuals

assume the Extended posture, but if the encounter continues, one of them changes to the

Withdraw Crouch posture and moves further away from the other (Fig. 4). The encounter

terminates when the individual that had the Withdraw Crouch posture gets away from the

other one, by walking or flying. After this, both individuals then reassume foraging.

55

Figure 4. Encounter between two Little Blue Heron in the Cananéia estuary feeding site. The

individual in the right is assuming the Extended posture, and the individual in the left is

assuming the Withdrawn Crouch posture.

Fight (n=13) - Fights between individuals are the most rare interaction. They can evolve from

an Encounter or begin directly as the individuals met each other. Both individuals assume the

Wings Lined-up posture, with the wing down side turned to the opponent, and then walk in

circle turned one to the other. They start to jump towards each other, with the legs stretched

and beating the wings. Both individuals try to hit the other with the feet and peck on each

other, reminding the fight behavior of domestic rosters. The fight finishes with the loser

running away, and the winner might promote a little chase.

Expulsion (n=132) – The expulsion occurs when an individual expel another individual from

an area, generally a territorial one expel an intruder. The defensive individual leaves the place

were it was foraging, flying, walking quickly or running, in direction of the intruder, and can

give an Ahh-ahh-ahh call as it lands. The intruder fly as it detects the approach of the

defensive one. The flight of the territorial individual is in a maximum height of 1m of the

ground, and it can maintain the neck curved or extended. When the defensive individual

56

chases the intruder by the ground, it normally beat the wings as it runs. Normally the bird

expels one individual at a time, but a few observations of it expelling two individuals at a time

were made too. During the flight, the heron dislocates with a more “patterned” wing beats.

Kleptoparasitism (n=42) – The stealing behavior was observed when an individual captured a

prey with more than 7cm, such as a crab (Callinectes sp.) or a fish (Synbranchus sp.), that

demands more handling time, and another one would came flying in its direction and attempt

to steal the captured prey. This behavior has a success of approximately 25%; in 11 of the 42

observations the individual managed to steal the prey.

Discussion

Two display postures, the Extended and the Wings-lined-up, are new both for the Little Blue

Heron behavior, as for the literature. For both, similar postures, from breeding and foraging

herons, as to the position of the body parts have been described (eg. Stretch, Alert, Upright

and Spread-wings – Bayer 1984b, Mock 1976, Meyerriecks 1960). The other two postures,

the Withdraw Crouch and the Spread-wings, were already described in the literature (Bayer

1984b, Meyerriecks 1960), and have been observed in foraging herons also by Bayer (1984b).

Although any definition will be somewhat controversial, it can be said that communication

occurs when a signal that evolve for the role is sent to a receiver and the recipient responds

(Goodenough et al. 1993). The displays observed in the Ardeidea are considered to have

evolved as part of the communicative repertory of the individuals, acting on the visual

channel of communication between them (Mock 1976). Since all the display postures we

identified here are used in agonistic interactions, they have probably evolved in a way that the

message to be passed on is linked to the establishment of individual relationships between the

individual birds. In a dyad, one of the individuals always leaves as the “winner”; then it can

be considered as the dominant individual in the interaction, having privilege accesses to the

resource disputed. Once dominance is attained, it is often flaunted with a badge or a

57

characteristic stature (Martín et al. 2007, Bókony et al. 2006, Osborne 2005, Goodenough et

al. 1993). In here, the displays would be used in this manner, as the initial stage in the

agonistic escalate.

Since the breeding behavior of the Little Blue Heron has not yet been studied in

Brazil, the displays associated to the pair formation and to the breeding cycle are not known.

Then, it is not possible to do a comparison of the displays and interactions between the

foraging and nesting periods (as did Bayer 1984b) of the populations that use the estuarine

areas in the coast. But if we compare it with the nesting behavior described by Rodgers

(1980) for the species in North America, only the Withdraw Crouch can be considered as

corresponding to the nesting displays. We do have similarities, but it seams that the behaviors

performed at feeding sites are distinct from the ones performed during the nesting period.

A complex of displays that have an extended neck position, with the bill held above

the horizontal (Vertical, Bittern Stance, Upright, Spread-wings, Vocal Rise and Stretch), is

suggested by Bayer (1984b). The Extended and the Wings-lined-up displays could then be

included in this complex. It could be possible that all these displays have the same

evolutionary origin, been specialized during the evolutionary process to different

environments and contexts. As suggested by Bayer (1984b), the Vertical and Bittern Stance

are related to signaling potential predators. The Strectch and Spread-wings serves as

appeasement and/or threat towards another individual during an agonistic encounter (Mock

1976, Bayer 1984b). But they are used in different contexts, the first occurring in nesting

areas and the second in foraging areas (Bayer 1984b). It is possible that the Extended and the

Wings Lined-up displays, both appearing to signal appeasement and/or threat, occurs for the

Little Blue Heron in the foraging areas, as the Spread-wings for the Great Blue Heron.

The erection of the feathers happens in the agonistic displays of the breeding period

(Upright, Forward, Twig Shake, and others) in all heron species studied (Palmer 1962, Mock

1976, 1978, Weise 1976, Rodgers 1977, 1980), and also in the displays common to both

58

nesting and foraging areas for the Great Blue Heron (Bayer 1984b). We did not observe it in

the displays of the Little Blue Heron in here. Bayer (1984b) also did not observed erection of

feathers for the Spread-wings, exclusive foraging ground display of the Great Blue Heron.

Since the foraging ground displays we identified for the Little Blue Heron seem to be distinct

from the nesting ones, the displays exclusive of foraging activities might have lost this

morphological characteristic during the evolutionary process.

Different from Bayer (1984a) that registered seven vocalizations (although part of

them is corresponding to the ones used during the reproductive behavior) for foraging Great

Blue Heron, we observed and registered only one vocalization for the foraging Little Blue

Heron. Its characteristics, frequency and duration of notes and intervals between notes, are

similar to the vocalizations of the Great Blue Heron (Bayer 1984b). The restrict use of the

Ahh-ahh-ahh call suggest that it might be an important component of the social organization

of the species during the foraging period. The low frequency of the sound is another

characteristic of this call that can be related to its social use; since by it’s been of low

frequency, it can be dissipated for long distances, reaching the goal of transmitting the

massage it contains.

Bayer (1984d) has described a very similar vocalization, the Roh-roh-roh call, of

similar frequency range, number and duration of notes, and duration of the intervals between

the notes (of low variance). The Roh-roh-roh call is yet used more by territorial, than by non-

territorial herons, and is also given spontaneously by territorial herons. These characteristics

suggests that the Roh-roh-roh call and the Ahh-ahh-ahh call might be a similar, or even

practically a same call, with intrinsic specific differences, but that has evolved together with

the feeding territorial behavior of non-breeding herons.

According to Mock (1976), the communication of herons can happen both by visual

and acoustic channels, and in an open environment the visual modality surpasses the acoustic.

But, as pointed by Mock, the visual signals can only reach the intended receiver if that

59

individual is oriented toward the sender. So the acoustic signals are used to maintain an open

visual channel (Mock 1976). All the displays we identified for the Little Blue Heron would

happen during an interaction with another individual (reactive displays, cf. Mock 1978); they

would never be performed by an individual that was alone, with no other in its surroundings.

This might explain the poor vocal array found, since it was not necessary for an individual to

drawn attention to it self by vocalizing, when the need of a display would appear only when

another individual would approach. This reinforces the possible function of the Ahh-ahh-ahh

call as a vocalization used in the social context of foraging, been related only to the Expulsion

interaction and not to any of the display postures.

Meyerriecks (1960) believes that the amount of neck extension reflects the degree of

escape tendencies. This might not be the case here, since as in the Encounter, the heron does

not show escape tendencies when performing the Extended posture, but does so when

performing the Withdrawn Crouch. Thus, in the social context of foraging in the Little Blue

Heron, the degree of extension of the neck might not be related to escape tendencies, been

more related to an attempt to appear bigger to the opponent. Appearing bigger in an agonistic

encounter is a valuable weapon for the individual, that might be able to end it before it

escalates to a more stressful and damaging physical dispute (Alcock 2005).

Fight is the last stage in an agonistic interaction between individuals, because of the

hight costs associated with the chances of loss and injuries. The ultimate consequence is the

death of an individual, what is extremely rare, but can happen (Richner 1985). Even so, fights

do occur among herons disputing resources, as food, territory and mates (Meyerriecks 1960,

Woolfeden et al. 1976, Forbes and McMackin 1984, Marion 1989, Nota 2003). Bayer (1984b)

has named as Face-off the interactions that lead to a fight between tow Great Blue Herons in

the foraging grounds. In all species, the actual fight occurs in a very similar way, as the birds

repeatedly lunge their bill and thrash their feet at one another, while beating the wings

60

rapidly. What differs between species is the display postures associated to the pre-fight period

(e.g. Wings-lined-up for the Little Blue Heron).

The territorial defense is common for herons during the nesting period, when the nest

and its surroundings are defended against other individuals. But true feeding territories are

few documented (Nota 2003, Yamada 1994, Marion 1989, Richner 1986, Recher 1972). In

the case of the Little Blue Heron in here, a true feeding territory is present; one that is fixed,

of exclusive use, and actively or passively defended against intruders (Moralez-Silva et al.

manuscrito 1).

A similar behavior to the Expulsion, the Pursuit Flight, was described by Bayer

(1984b). But this could occur in different interactions, as a territorial defense, a non-territorial

bird defending an individual distance, mobbing of predator or kleptoparasitism attempt.

Although a pursuit did occur for the Little Blue Heron in a defense of individual distance by

non-territorial herons and in a kleptoparasitism attempt, the use of pursuit on the Expulsion is

distinct, and occurs in a particular context. We have not observed any Little Blue Heron

pursuing individuals of another species. Therefore, we have not found necessary to

distinguish pursuit as a particular kind of interaction.

Although not in the context of territorial defense, the Great Egret and other species

presents an agonistic behavior during the breeding period in which the bird flies suddenly and

lands either atop its opponent or on the spot just vacated by the fleeing bird, often adopting an

extended neck posture, the Supplanting, as described by Mock (1978). As the Little Blue

Heron Expulsion, Supplanting is used to drive away undesirable individuals, and the use of an

extended neck might be related to a more aggressive outcome, since the normal flight is in the

S shape curved neck position.

The flight with an extended neck occurs too during the Circle Flight, displayed also

during the breeding period for various heron species. This behavior is considered as an

advertisement display (Mock 1976). So, another reason for the use of an extended neck during

61

the Expulsion might be related to an increase in the visibility of the individual, since

appearing bigger than it is, might drown the attention of the nearby birds.

The kleptoparasitism have been documented by various authors for different species of

herons and egrets (Collins 2006, Garrido et al. 2002, Lekuona 2002, González 1996, Kushlan

1978b). It occurs inter and intra-specifically for all those species, but a better understanding of

its dynamics and its role on the social context of foraging are not well understood. Garrido et

al. (2002) have suggested for the Cattle Egret, that this behavior serves to establish social

status among dominant individuals. For the Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea), Lekuona (2002) also

suggested that the kleptoparasitism could be a reflection of the social structure. Our

observations were not on individually marked herons, so we could not differentiate the use of

this behavior by distinct individuals in the aggregation. But we could observe that apparently,

only a few individuals expressed this behavior, suggesting the possibility of a role in the

social structure of Little Blue Heron feeding aggregated.

The agonistic behavior can be a real attack, or simply to involve threat behaviors, that is,

the postures and gestures that informs to the opponent to go away, or then, that it will became

an attack target (Kandel et al. 1995). Thus, the social interactions observed by us, including

the display postures, can be considered as been agonistic. In all of them, one of the

individuals is the “winner”, having a certain gain as the outcome of the dispute. Since these

interactions occur in the feeding site, during the foraging activities, we can assume that the

disputes are, direct or indirectly, over a food resource. One of the reasons for the territorial

defense might be the defense of an area with more food available (see Moralez-Silva et al.

manuscrito 1).

The social interactions between foraging herons are then diverse and very important in

defining the successful/unsuccessful use of the feeding resource, reflecting thus on the future

of the individual, its survival and reproduction.

62

Aknowledgements

This article represents part of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the M.S. degree in the Departmento de Fisiologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do

Norte, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Finantial support, in form of a scholarship, is

acknowledged from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(CAPES). Grateful thanks to the Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC) and its personnel for

furnishing equipments and physical support. And to friends and family, always important.

References

Alcock J (2005) Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer Associates Inc.,

Sunderland, Mass.

Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior 49:227-267.

Bagley F M, Grau GA (1979) Aspects of the Yellow-crowned Night Heron reproductive

behavior. Proc Colon Waterbird Group 3:165–175.

Battley PF, Poot M, Wiersma P, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y, Piersma T (2003) Social

foraging by waterbirds in shallow coastal lagoons in Ghana. Waterbirds 26:26-34.

Bayer R (1984a). Vocalizations of Great Blue Herons at Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Colon

Waterbirds 7:35–44.

Bayer R (1984b) Foraging ground displays of Great Blue Herons at Yaquina Estuary, Oregon.

Colon Waterbirds 7:45–54.

Blaker D (1969) Behaviour of the Cattle Egret Ardeola ibis. Ostrich 40:75–129.

Bókony V, Lendvai AZ, Liker A (2006) Multiple cues in status signalling: The role of

wingbars in aggressive interactions of male house sparrows. Ethology 112:947-954.

Collins CT (2006) Interspecific kleptoparasitism of Elegant Terns by Snowy Egrets.

Waterbirds 29:401-404.

63

Custer TW, Osborn RG (1978) Feeding habitat use by colonially-breeding herons, egrets and

ibises in North Carolina. Auk 95:733-743.

Erwin RM (1983) Feeding habitats of nesting wading birds: spatial use and social influences.

Auk 100:960–970.

Erwin RM (1984). Feeding flights of nesting wading birds at a Virginia colony. Colon

Waterbirds 7:174-179.

Forbes LS, McMackin E (1984) Extreme aggression in Great Blue Herons. Wilson Bull

96:318–319.

Garrido JR, Sarasa CG, Fernández-Cruz M (2002) Intraspecific kleptoparasitism in the Cattle

Egret. J. Field Ornithol 73:185-190.

Girardeau LA, Caraco T (2000) Social Foraging Theory. Princeton MBA, Princeton.

González JA (1996) Kleptoparasitism in mixed-species foraging flocks of wading birds

during the late dry season in the llanos of Venezuela. Colon Waterbirds 19:226-231.

Goodenough J, McGuire B, Wallace R (1993) Perspectives on Animal Behavior. John Wiley

& Sons, New York.

Hafner H, Boy V, Gory G (1982) Feeding methods, flock size and feeding success in the

Little Egret Egretta garzetta and the Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides in Camargue, southern

France. Ardea 70:45-54.

Kandel ER, Jessell TM, Schwartz JH (1995) Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior.

Appleton & Lang, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Krebs JR, Davies NB (1991) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993). An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell Scientific


Krebs JR (1974) Colonial nesting as and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food

resources in the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). Behaviour 51:99–134.

64

Kushlan JA, Morales G, Frohring PC (1985) Foraging niche relationships of wading birds in

tropical wet savannas. Ornithol Monogr 36:663–682.

Kushlan JA (1976a) Feeding behavior of North American herons. Auk 93:86–94.

Kushlan JA (1976b) Wading bird predation in a seasonally fluctuating pond. Auk 93:464-476.

Kushlan JA (1977) The significance of plumage color in the formation of feeding

aggregations of Ciconiiformes. Ibis 119:361–364.

Kushlan JA (1978a). Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Sprunt A, Ogden JC, Winckler S

(eds) Wading birds. Res rep no 7, National Audubon Soc, New York, pp 249–297.

Kushlan JA (1978b) Nonrigorous foraging by robbing egrets. Ecology 59:649–653.

Kushlan JA (1981) Resource use strategies of wading birds. Wilson Bull 93:45-163.

Lancaster DA (1970) Breeding behavior of the Cattle Egret in Colombia. Living Bird 9:167–

194.

Lehner PN (1998) Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Lekuona JM (2002) Kleptoparasitism in wintering Grey Heron Ardea cinerea. Folia Zool

51:215-220.

Marion L (1989) Territorial feeding and colonial breeding are not mutually exclusive: The

case of the Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea). Journal Animal Ecology 58:693-710.

Martín J, Moreira PL, López P (2007) Status-signalling chemical badges in male Iberian rock

lizards. Functional Ecology 21:568-576.

Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring Behavior. Cambridge University Press, London.

Master TL (1992) Composition, structure, and dynamics of mixed-species foraging

aggregations in a southern New Jersey salt marsh. Colon Waterbirds 15:66–74.

Meanley B (1955) A nesting study of the Little Blue Heron in eastern Arkansas. Wilson Bull

67:84–99.

65

Meyerriecks AJ (1960) Comparative breeding behavior of four species of North American

herons. Publ NuttalOrnithol Club no 2, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Mock DW (1976) Pair formation displays of the Great Blue Heron. Wilson Bull 88:185–230.

Mock DW (1978) Pair-formation displays of the Great Egret. Condor 80:159–172.

Noble GK, Wurm M, Schmidt A (1938) Social behavior of the Black-crowned Night Heron.

Auk 55:7–40.

Nota Y (2003) Effects of body size and sex on foraging territoriality of the Little Egret

(Egretta garzeta) in Japan. Auk 120:791-798.

Osborne L (2005) Information content of male agonistic displays in the territorial tawny

dragon (Ctenophorus decresii). Journal of Ethology 23:189-197.

Palmer RS (1962) Handbook of North American Birds, Vol I: Loons through Flamingos. Yale

University Press, New Haven.

Papakostas G, Kazantzidis S, Goutner V, Charalambidou I (2005) Factors affecting the

foraging behavior of the Squacco Heron. Waterbirds 28:28-34.

Powell GVN (1987) Habitat use by wading birds in a subtropical estuary: Implications of

hydrography. Auk 104:740–749.

Pratt HM (1980) Directions and timing of Great Blue Heron foraging flights from a California

colony: implications for social facilitation of food finding. Wilson Bull 92:489-496.

Recher HF (1972) Territorial behaviour of the Reef Heron Egretta sacra. Emu 72:126-130.

Richardson AJ, Taylor IR, Growns JE (2001) The foraging ecology of egrets in rice fields in

southern New South Wales, Australia. Waterbirds 24:255-264.

Richner H (1985) One adult Grey Heron killing another on feeding territory. Brit. Birds

78:297-297.

Richner H (1986) Winter feeding strategies of individually marked herons. Anim Behav

34:881-886.

66

Rodgers JA, Jr. (1977). Breeding displays of the Louisiana Heron. Wilson Bull 89:267–285.

Rodgers JA, Jr. (1978a) Display characteristics and frequency of breeding by subadult Little

Blue Herons. In: Sprunt A, Ogden JC, Winckler S (eds) Wading birds. Res rep no 7, National

Audubon Soc, New York, pp 35-39.

Rodgers JA, Jr. (1978b) Breeding behavior of the Louisiana Heron. Wilson Bull 90:45–59.

Rodgers JA, Jr. (1980a) Little Blue Heron breeding behavior. Auk 97:371–384.

Rodgers JA, Jr. (1983) Foraging behavior of seven species of herons in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Colon Waterbirds 6:11–23.

Smith JP (1995) Foraging sociability of nesting wading birds (Ciconiiformes) at Lake

Okeechobee, Florida. Wilson Bull 107:437–451.

Weise JH (1976) Courtship and pair formation in the Great Egret. Auk 93:709–724.

Wiggins DA (1991) Foraging success and aggression in solitary and group-feeding Great

Egrets (Casmerodius albus). Colon Waterbirds 14:176–179.

Willard DE (1977) The feeding ecology and behavior of five species of herons in southeastern

New Jersey. Condor 79:462–470.

Werschkul DF (1982) Nesting ecology of the Little Blue Heron: promiscuous behavior.

Condor 84:381–384.

Woolfenden GE, White SC, Mumme RL, Robertson WB, Jr. (1976) Aggression among

starving Cattle Egrets. Bird Band 47:48–53.

Yamada K (1994) Feeding behavior and territoriality according to the prey types and habitats

in the Little Egret Egretta garzeta. Japanese J Ornithol 6:36-68.







67

Journal of Ethology – Formatação.

Manuscripts must be written in English. In MS-Word files the text should be double-

spaced with 3-cm margins and set in A4 size. Pages should be numbered consecutively and

arranged in he following order:

• Title page (including title of paper; the names and affiliations of all authors; total text

pages; numbers of tables and figures; address to which reviewed manuscripts and

proofs should be sent, including e-mail address, telephone, and fax number).

• Abstract (no more than 100 words for short communications and 200 words for other

papers).

• Five to eight Key words.

• Text, divided into the following sections, Introduction, Study area (if necessary),

Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgments, References, tables,

and figure legends.

Authors should consult recent issues for details of style and presentation. Genus and

species names should be in italics.

References

References should be cited in the text by the author and year. The reference list at the

end of the paper should include only works cited in the text and should be arranged

alphabetically by the name of the first author. Citations of "unpublished results" or papers "in

preparation" should be included in the text but not in the reference list.

References should be cited as follows: journal papers — names and initials of all

authors, year in parentheses, full title, journal as abbreviated in accordance with international

practice, volume number, first and last page numbers; books — names and initials of all

authors, year, chapter title, names and initials of all editors, full title, edition, publisher, place

of publication.

• Example of a paper journal in the reference list:

Tanaka T, Hashimoto H, Tanida H, Yoshimoto T (1995) Studies on the visual acuity

of sheep using shape discrimination learning. J Ethol 13:69-75

If available the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the cited literature should be added

at the end of the reference in question, e.g.,

Murase K, Itioka T, Inui Y, Itino T (2002) Species specificity in settling-plant

68

selection by foundress ant queens in Macaranga--Crematogaster myrmecophytism in a

Bornean dipterocarp forest. J Ethol 20:19-24 DOI 10.1007/s10164-002-0049-8.

• Example of a book:

Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, Berlin.

• Example of a chapter in a book:

Noirot C (1992) Sexual castes and reproductive strategies in termites. In: Engels W

(ed) Social insects. Springer, Berlin, pp 5-35.

Responsibility for the accuracy of bibliographic data rests entirely with the author.

Tables and figures

Tables must be numbered consecutively with arabic numerals and should have a title

explaining any abbreviation used in that table. Footnotes to tables should be indicated by

superscript lower-case letters.

Illustrations must be restricted to the minimum needed to clarify the text. All figures

(photographs, graphs or diagrams) should be cited in the text, and numbered consecutively

throughout. Figure parts should be identified by lower-case roman letters (a, b, etc.). If

illustrations are supplied with uppercase labeling, lower-case letters will still be used in the

figure legends and citations.

Figure legends must be brief, self-sufficient explanations of the illustrations. The

legends should be placed at the end of the text.

69

Manuscrito 3

Título – Comportamento Territorial da Garça-azul, Egretta caerulea.

Autores - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio José de Lima Silva2 and Emygdio Leite de








Periódico – Ethology, QUALIS A.


70

Resumo

O estabelecimento de um território para a defesa de uma área de alimentação, como

uma forma de utilização do habitat, pode ser o resultado de disputas que ocorrem em uma área

de forrageio na qual mais de um indivíduo utilizam os mesmos recursos, tendo assim uma

sobreposição de nicho entre eles. A utilização de territórios alimentares por garças e os

componentes comportamentais relacionados não foram documentados para muitas espécies.

Assim, este estudo vem para complementar o trabalho que vem sendo realizado sobre a

territorialidade alimentar da garça-azul, Egretta caerulea, em uma área de estuário no sudeste

do Brasil. O principal objetivo foi acessar o uso e a dinâmica de diferentes comportamentos

por indivíduos territoriais. Um indivíduo territorial utiliza primariamente três comportamentos

na manutenção de sua área, a Expulsão (freqüência - 13,74 ± 10,98), a Vocalização (9,53 ±

4,91) e o Encontro (1,66 ± 1,40). As flutuações diárias da maré mostraram-se tendo influência

no comportamento territorial da garça-azul, relacionando-se a exposição da área de

alimentação e a possibilidade ou não de intrusos adentrarem o território. A vocalização tem

aparentemente um forte componente social, a qual poderia ser utilizada para a proclamação da

posição de dominância que um indivíduo territorial ocupa no grupo. Todo o comportamento

social (soma dos três comportamentos) envolvido na manutenção de um território toma cerca

de 1,30% de todo o tempo gasto em um dia de atividade de forrageio. Aparentemente o

comportamento territorial da garça-azul não é muito custoso energeticamente, trazendo mais

benefícios do que gastos para o indivíduo. Todas as evidências apontam para a existência de

um indivíduo de garça-azul defendendo um território alimentar durante todo o período de

invernada, através de um comportamento territorial pouco custoso.

71

Title Page

Title – Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, Territorial Behavior.

Authors - Emmanuel Moralez-Silva1, Flávio J. de Lima Silva2 and Emygdio L. A. Monteiro-

Filho3.




Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]. Corresponding author.



Laboratório de sistemática e Ecologia Animal, Dept. de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade do

Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Mossoró, RN, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

3 – Departamento de Zoologia, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Centro Politécnico,

Universidade Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Curitiba, PR, 81.531-990, Brazil.


Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

Running title: Little Blue Heron Territorial Behavior.

Total number of words: 6.021

72

Abstract

The establishment of a territory to defend a feeding area, as one way of habitat use, can be the

outcome of disputes that occur in a feeding area where more than one individual use the same

resources, having then a niche overlap between each other. The use of feeding territories by

herons and egrets and the behavioral contents of it have not been documented for many

species. Therefore, this study comes as a complementary work on the feeding territoriality of

the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, in an estuarine area of southeastern Brazil, which

have been recently studied by these authors. The main objective was to access the use and

dynamics of different behaviors by territorial individuals. A territorial individual uses

primarily three behaviors in the maintenance of its area, Expulsion (frequency – 13.74 ±

10.98), Vocalization (9.53 ± 4.91) and Encounter (1.66 ± 1.40). The fluctuations of the tide

showed to have an influence in the Little Blue Herons territorial behavior, been related to the

exposition of the feeding area, and the possibility or not of intruders to enter the territory. The

vocalization has apparently a strong social component, which could be used to advertise and

proclaim the dominance position of a territorial individual in the group. The whole social

behavior involved in the maintenance of a territory (some of the three behaviors) accounts

only for about 1.30% of the time spent in the feeding site. Thus, it seams that the territorial

behavior in the Little Blue Heron dos not have such an energetic demand, bringing more

benefits than expenditures to the individual. All results point out to the existence of one Little

Blue Heron individual defending a feeding territory trough an entire winter, by a low cost

territorial behavior.

73

Introduction

The habitat selection is an important part of a species biology, and its consequences can rival

the impact of strong direct interactions among species in developing communities (Morin

1999). This selection is, thereafter, involved in the outcomes of the interactions of foraging

individuals in a determined area, and hence on the species use of habitat.

When more than one individual are exploiting the same resources, there is a niche

overlap between them, and a competition for the resource can arise. There are different

mechanisms in which this competition may arise; such as a simple exploitation of the same

resource, reducing the success rates of each bird; the scramble, in which every bird tries to be

the fastest in capturing the prey, without aggression; and the contest competition, where the

individuals interact aggressively to get the resource (Milinski & Parker 1991). The

competition leads to different distributions of the individuals in the different habitats. One of

the ways of resource use is by the defense of a portion of it, by defending the actual resource

or an area in which the resource is present. This is called despotic distribution, and some

individuals exclude others from a richer patch or habitat (Krebs & Davis 1997).

When an area is defended by one or more individuals, it is usually termed a territory.

There are different definitions for territory, but the one adopted here is the Maher and Lott’s

definition, that a territory is a fixed space from which an individual or group of mutually

tolerant individuals excludes competitors from a specific resource or resources (Maher & Lott

1995).

The knowledge of the behavioral dynamics of a species is currently considered as

fundamental to promote and maintain conservational actions to the preservation of a species

(Beissinger 1997). The behaviors related to the foraging activities directly affect the

individual’s chances of survival and reproduction. Therefore, and according to Tripp and

74

Collazo (1997), the identification of components of non-breeding territoriality of a species are

necessary to gain insights about its possible adaptive significance.

Although the knowledge of territories in the Ciconiiformes are well reported for the

nesting pairs, few species have had a true feeding territory reported; following the three

factors necessary to demonstrate territoriality by Brown and Orians (1970). Recently, the

existence of feeding territories for the Little Blue Heron, Egretta caerulea, have been reported

for a population that utilizes the rich estuarine-lagoon system of Cananéia, southeastern

Brazil, for foraging and living (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1). This species of heron is

poor studied in South America; and specifically in Brazil, only Olmos and its collaborators

have studied it, an mostly its reproductive ecology (Olmos et al. 2001; Olmos & Silva e Silva

2002). Thus, more profound studies on the behavior and ecology of its habitat use are

necessary for a better understanding of the species biology in this area of occurrence.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize the behaviors associated to the territorial

defense in the Little Blue Heron, in the same area it have been studied by us since 2005:

identifying the frequency of occurrence of the behaviors uttered by territorial individuals, and

determining the frequency, latency and duration of those behaviors.

Methods

Study Area and Methods

The study was conducted in a mud bank in the estuarine-lagoon system of Cananéia,

southeastern coast of Brazil (from 25° 00` to 25° 04` S and 47° 54` to 47° 56` E) (Fig 1). The

system is formed by the islands Ilha de Cananéia, Ilha Comprida and Ilha do Cardoso.

Between these islands, there are channels that are connected to the open sea by the Barra de

Cananéia, between the Ilha Comprida and Ilha do Cardoso. The system is under the influence

of the tide. For a more detailed description of the area see Moralez-Silva et al. (manuscrito 1),

75

since this work is part of the results of a project been developed on the use of the habitat by

the Little Blue Heron in the region, been presented in different articles recently.

Figure 1. Map of part of the estuarine-lagoon system of Cananéia, Southeastern coast of

Brazil. The bold triangle indicates the mud bank used in the study of the territorial behavior of

the Little Blue Heron.

All data were collected from a single fixed point (an existing pier), from January to

August 2007. Since the individuals have not yet been marked, the only individuals that can be

monitored through an entire foraging period are the territorial ones. This because of there

fixed use of an exclusive and defended area. Therefore, the data were collected from the

individual (an adult, sex undetermined) defending the area in front of the observation point

(as described in Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1). It had already been observed that this

individual remains the whole foraging period (of one day) defending this area, from its arrival

to its departure (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1). Thus, this individual could be monitored

for the entire foraging period, for several days, and its behaviors were taken note. The method

76

of focal sampling with continuous recording on a work sheet (Martin & Bateson 1993) was

used to the data collection.

The behaviors quantified are as described for the foraging Little Blue Heron in the area by

Moralez-Silva et al. (manuscrito 2). It was considered for this quantification the interactions

between individuals: 1. Expulsion; 2. Encounter; and 3. Kleptoparasitism; and also the Ahh-

ahh-ahh call (possible related to the social context) (from now on called vocalization). All

occurrences of these behaviors, for the territorial individual, were registered on a check-sheet

and chronometered. By this, true frequencies, durations and latencies of all behaviors were

accomplished.

Data Analysis

Two states of the tide were used in the analysis, described below:

1. Mud bank partially exposed – when the middle portion of the mud bank is covered.

2. Mud bank totally exposed – when the mud bank is completely exposed.

These items are related to an entire day of observation, so one day would be considered as

one or another. A total day category was also used to accomplish the total of days, grouping

the days of partially and totally exposed mud bank together.

To account for the distribution of the different behaviors in one day of foraging activity,

the days of mud bank totally exposed where subdivided into six periods of equal time

duration: from 1, the first period after the arrival of the territorial individual, to the subsequent

periods, until the last one, the 6.

To analyze the duration of the vocalizations (the Ahh-ahh-ahh call) as the time passed,

only the days with more then six vocalizations where used, to maintain enough variation

inside the category. Four categories where created: 1) First vocalization - the one

simultaneously with arriving; 2) Second vocalization – the second vocalization performed,

after the first; 3) Third vocalization – the next vocalization after the second; and 4) Following

vocalizations – all the other ones that came after the third (from three to 19).

77

All data were tested for normality by one-way Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test

and for homocedascity by the F-max test (Zar 1999) before further tests were performed. In

general, the data had a normal distribution, but the variances were too different. Due to this,

and also to a small quantity of data for a few of the analysis, non-parametric tests were

chosen: Mann-Whitney (U) and Kruskal-Wallis one way ANOVA (H).

Pearson correlation was performed between the number of foraging individuals in the

mud bank per day and the frequency of occurrence of the Expulsion and the Vocalization,

also per day. Statistical significance was considered at α=0,05.

Results

Along 47 days of data collection, 224.17 hours of observation (mean ± SD: 05.16 ± 01.32

hours per day) were made, with the focal individual in sight. Of the 47 days, 33 were with the

mud bank totally exposed, and 14 were with the mud bank partially exposed.

The territorial individual arrived as soon as the day cleared (06.24 ± 00.24 in the

morning), and landed in the mangrove trees in the margin of its territory when the tide was

still high, or directly on the ground when the tide was lowering, and a few mud was already

exposed. This individual was always one of the first individuals to arrive at the area, coming

from the roosting area, about one kilometer northern, in a mangrove island. But it was

observed to arrive latter some times, even as the number 37 once. Another two territorial

individuals would also arrive almost at the same time, and land on its respective territories

(one to northern and the other to southern, but yet neighbors of the territorial). All the other

individuals would land to southern, on an exposed area (when the mud bank was still

covered), or directly on the mud bank, when exposed. It was never observed another

individual landing on the territorial area before this had arrived, and also this has never landed

on another ones area. After the territorial had arrived on its area, if other individual would try

to land, it would be expelled; but this was uncommon. The usual intrusion would happen

78

during the mud bank exposed time, by walking. The territorial individual was observed

landing on the ground as it arrived, and immediately start foraging, or waiting up to 156 min

to land on the ground and start foraging, when arriving with the high tide.

There were a total of 640 expulsions, 451 vocalizations, and 77 encounters registered

during the study period. Of the expulsion, 88.59% where without the vocalization associated,

and the other 11.41% had the vocalization associated. The expulsion without the vocalization

occurred on average 14.18 ± 9,82 times per day, and with the vocalization associated occurred

on average 1.89 ± 1,60 times per day. The vocalization alone occurred in the arrival of the

territorial individual and after a short flight within its territory. The encounter occurred most

times with the two territorial neighbors.

When the mud bank was partially exposed, the vocalization had a greater frequency

(7.60 ± 3.72) then the other two behaviors (expulsion – 3.20 ± 2.37; encounter – 1.60 ± 1.35)

(H=20.60, GL=2, p<0.01) (Fig. 2a). In the mud bank totally exposed condition, the frequency

of occurrence of the expulsion was higher (18.69 ± 9.87), followed by the vocalization (10.44

± 5.19) and then by the encounter (1.69 ± 1.45) (H=70.31, GL=2, p<0.01) (Fig. 2b). Now,

when grouping them into the total day category, the expulsion (13.74 ± 10.98) and the

vocalization (9.53 ± 4.91) had a similar frequency of occurrence, been this higher then the

frequency of encounter occurrence (1.66 ± 1.40) (H=70.90, GL=2, p<0.01) (Fig. 2c).

Significant differences between the two tidal conditions occurred only for the expulsion,

which presented a higher frequency in the totally exposed mud bank condition (U=1.50,

p<0.01) (vocalization – U=168.00, p=0.13; encounter – U=200.50, p=0.48).

79

A

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

5

10

15

20N

um

ber

of b

ehav

ior

/ day

B

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of b

ehav

ior

/ day

C

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of b

ehav

ior

/ day

Figure 2. Frequency of the behaviors of a territorial Little Blue Heron, in a mud bank in the

Cananéia estuary, Brazil. (a) mud bank partially exposed; (b) mud bank totally exposed; (c)

total day category. Values are given as median, with the whiskers representing minimum to

maximum value.

In both conditions (partially exposed mud bank – H=88.50, GL=2, p<0.01; totally

exposed mud bank – H=524.57, GL=2, p<0.01), as well as in the total day category

(H=630.81, GL=2, p<0.01), the duration of the encounter (partially exposed – 46.35 ± 40.88s;

totally exposed – 34.63 ± 32.73; total day – 39.00 ± 36.17) was very higher then the other two

behaviors, followed by the expulsion (partially exposed – 9.96 ± 9.24; totally exposed – 8.75

± 5.65; total day – 8.85 ± 6.02) and then by the vocalization (partially exposed – 3.18 ± 1.69;

80

totally – 2.85 ± 1.76; total day – 2.95 ± 1.74) (Figs. 3a,b,c). The duration of the expulsion

(U=11433.50, p=0.62), the encounter (U=520.00, p=0.16), and the vocalization (U=13056.00,

p=0.51) showed no significant differences between the two tidal conditions (totally and

partially exposed mud bank) (Figs. 3a,b).

A

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

Tim

e (s

)

B

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

Tim

e (s

)

C

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

Tim

e (s

)

Figure 3. Duration of the behaviors of a territorial Little Blue Heron, in a mud bank in the



maximum value.

The vocalization was the only behavior that occurred simultaneously with arrival, in

100% of the days, having then a latency of 0. The latency for the other two behaviors

(expulsion: partially exposed mud bank – 77.50 ± 47.68 min; totally exposed mud bank –

81

65.18 ± 37.52; total day category – 68.47 ± 40.28 / encounter: partially exposed – 93.91 ±

52.92; totally exposed – 107.83 ± 65.68; total day – 103.32 ± 61.38) did not differ between

the two tidal conditions (expulsion – U=159.00, p=0.66; encounter – U=104.00, p=0.62) (Fig.

4a,b); and the encounter had a slightly higher latency then the expulsion in general (totally

exposed – U=292.50, p<0.05; total day – U=549.50, p<0.05), only not in the partially exposed

mud bank condition (U=38.50, p=0.59) (Figs. 4a,b,c).

A

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tim

e (m

in)

B

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

250T

ime

(min

)

C

Expul.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 4. Latency of the behaviors of a territorial Little Blue Heron, in a mud bank in the



maximum value.

82

In the partially exposed mud bank condition, there was no difference in the time

interval between the occurrences of the behaviors between the expulsion (38.70 ± 43.52 min)

and the vocalization (26.25 ± 23.55) (U=1599.00, p=0.74) (Fig. 5a). Yet, statistically

significant differences occurred between the expulsion (8.41 ± 9.63) and the vocalization

(25.79 ± 27.28) for the totally exposed mud bank condition (U=41612.00, p<0.01) (Fig. 5b);

and also for all three behaviors when grouping them into the total day category (expulsion –

9.68 ± 14.21; vocalization – 25.89 ± 26.46; encounter – 62.51 ± 58.15) (H=207.50, GL=2,

p<0.01) (Fig. 5b). The time interval differed statistically between the two tidal conditions for

the expulsion (U=3819.00, p<0.01), but not for the vocalization (U=15032.00, p=0.51) (Fig.

5a). Since there were few data, and a very variable one (VAR=3166.85; CV=95.46) for the

encounter, this behavior was excluded from the analysis of the tidal conditions, been included

only in the total day category analysis.

A

Expul.

Vocal.

Expul.

Vocal.

0

50

100

150

200

Partially exp. Totally exp.

Tim

e (m

in)

B

Expul

.

Vocal.

Encount.

0

100

200

300

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 5. Time intervals between the occurrences of the behaviors of a territorial Little Blue

Heron, in a mud bank in the Cananéia estuary, Brazil. (A) mud bank partially exposed, and

totally exposed; (B) total day category. Values are given as median, with the whiskers

representing minimum to maximum value.

83

The duration of the first vocalization (6.90 ± 1.42 s) was greater then the second (4.04

± 1.40), the third (2.69 ± 0.78) and the followings (2.26 ± 0.92) (H=138.56, GL=3, p<0.01)

(Fig. 6).

First

Second

Third

Follow.

0

5

10

15

Tim

e (

s)

Figure 6. Duration of the vocalizations of a territorial Little Blue Heron, throughout a

foraging day in a mud bank in the Cananéia estuary, Brazil. Values are given as median, with

the whiskers representing minimum to maximum value.

The expulsion occurred more in the middle portion of on day of foraging activity

(H=79.23, GL=5, p<0.01). The vocalization occurred more in the initial portion of one day

(H=26.35, GL=5, p<0.01). No significant differences were found for the encounter, occurring

homogeneously though one day of foraging activity (H=3.91, GL=5, p=0.56) (Fig. 7).

84

1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8

10Expul.Vocal.Encount.

Periods of time

Nu

mbe

r o

f be

hav

ior

/ per

iod

of

time

Figure 7. Distribution, in one foraging day (divided into six periods of equal time), of the

behaviors of a territorial Little Blue Heron, in a mud bank in the Cananéia estuary, Brazil.

Values are given as mean ± SE.

In table 1 are the percentage of the time each behavioral unit occupied in the feeding

time of one day of foraging activity. The expulsion amount of time is significantly higher than

the other two behaviors (H=29.60, GL=2, p<0.01).

Table 1. The times and percentages of time each behavioral unit occupied during one day of

foraging activity of the Little Blue Heron in the Cananéia estuary. The total column is the

some of the three units and the relation of time they occupied in one day of foraging activity.

Behavioral

units

Expulsion Vocalization Encounter Total (some)

time (s) % time (s) % time (s) % time (s) %

mean 136,37 54,12 29,49 17,60 63,78 28,28 215,75 1,30

SD 121,44 26,98 10,73 12,98 65,95 26,85 160,55 0,72

median 123,60 59,47 27,60 14,49 41,60 17,77 194,70 1,17

85

A weak correlation was found between the number of Expulsions (13.74 ± 10.98) and

the number of individuals (50.4 ± 13.99) foraging in the mud bank in one day of activity

(r=0.34, GL=45, p=0.036). A more strong correlation was found between the number of

individuals foraging and the number of vocalizations (9.53 ± 4.91) in one day of activity

(r=0.60, GL=45, p<0.01).

Discussion

The influence of the tide on the territorial behavior of the Little Blue Heron became clear, and

can be observed in almost all the analysis where tide is a variable. What can be observed is

that the use of the vocalization is more related to the initial portion of the foraging time, the

period where normally the tide is lowering. This is probably because the presence of an

intruder on the territorial individual’s area it is not required for the execution of this behavior,

since the intruders would normally intrude by walking. Now, the expulsion depends on the

existence of an intruder on the territorial individual’s territory, and so, it can be observed that

the frequency of this behavior is higher in the periods of exposed mud bank, and thus,

consequently, the time intervals between its occurrences are lower in this period.

There seams to be a tread between these two behaviors, from the beginning to the end

of the foraging periods, been the vocalization used more in the initial/middle portion and the

expulsion more in the middle/final portion. This suggests that they are both important in the

territorial maintenance, and can be used for the same purpose at different times of the

individuals foraging activity budget.

Only the encounter had no differences concerning the different tidal conditions, and

this is probably due to the fact that the encounter happened normally between the territorial

individual and another territorial neighbor. These neighbors where present independently of

the tide, so the encounter could happen at any time.

86

The only parameter that the tide seams not to influence is the duration of the

behaviors, and this appears to be plausible, since the dynamics of the tide are not so drastic,

happening in a greater time scale then the behaviors.

The physical environment affects the lives of ciconiiforms in different aspects, such as

in form of the hydrological conditions, which can switch in dramatic ways between seasons;

and have a strong relation to, for example, the nesting phenology of a species (Kushlan 1981).

In a more restrict scale, the influence of the tidal cycle on the individual’s behaviors, and its

influences on the use and distribution on the habitat of different species have been

documented by various researchers (Custer & Osborn 1978; Rodgers 1983; Richner 1986;

Bryan et al. 2002; Maccarone & Brzorad 2005; Swennen & Yu 2005).

The vocalization, as suggested earlier by us (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 2),

apparently has a strong social component. It is used mainly as an exclusive behavior, that is,

not associated to the expulsion; and also, most in the beginning and middle portion of the

foraging period. The first vocalization, when arriving at the site, is the one that lasts the most;

and the second have also a bigger duration them the following ones. Therefore, this particular

call might be one of the forms to advertise and proclaim the dominance position of a

territorial individual. Also, the vocalization could be used as a way to avoid further confront

between individuals; further danger of injury and waist of important energy reserves. The

positive correlation found between the number of individuals foraging in the mud bank in one

day and the number of vocalizations given in one day is another result that points out to this

direction. As suggested earlier by us (Moaralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 2), this vocalization

could be homologous to the Roh-roh-roh call of territorial feeding Great Blue Herons (Bayer

1984); which, according to Bayer (1984), could be used as a distinguishable call between

territorial neighbors, helping to identify strangers and minimize interactions with neighbors.

The use of a vocalization or song in context disputes over territories is not uncommon, and it

has been associated to the signaling of aggressiveness between rivals for various species of

87

birds (Kroodsma & Byers 1991; Aubin et al. 2004; Searey et al. 2006; Ripmeester et al.

2007), and also for amphibians (Bee & Gerhardt 2002) and insects (Mason 1996).

We have suggested earlier (Moralez-Silva manuscrito 2) that the intraspecific

kleptoparasitism could be acting on the social organization of the foraging Little Blue Heron;

as it was suggested for the Cattle Egret, Bubulcus ibis, in which this behavior could be serving

to establish social status among dominant individuals (Garrido et al. 2002). But, since no

kleptoparasitism was observed for the territorial individual, this might not be the case in here.

Yet, this behavior is observed for the specie in the area. Thus, the use of this behavior in the

social context should not be discredited; it could be acting in this context in a different

manner. Therefore, further study is needed to establish the function of this behavior in the

social foraging of the Little Blue Heron.

The expulsion accounts for more then 50% of the time spent in the social behaviors.

The vocalization and the encounter account for about 15% each (this can also be seen in the

frequencies of each behavior’s use). Thus, the active defense of the resource appears to have a

stronger part on the individual’s choice and time budget. The vocalization and the encounter

might serve more as advertisement displays of the individual’s dominance to its co specifics.

According to Stamps and Krishnan (1994), territory owners dominate floaters and

subordinates. Therefore, the actual defense of the territory seams to be made by the active

defense, and the other social behaviors completes the proclamation of the dominance position

that the retention of a defended area brings to the individual.

However, the whole social behavior (some of the three behaviors) involved in the

maintenance of a territory accounts only for about 1.30% of the time spent in the feeding site,

in foraging activity. Similar results were found for wintering Pied Wagtail (Motacilla alba

yarrellii), spending about 4% of the time on each foraging day on defense related behaviors

(Davis 1976). Thus, the defense of this area, one that could bring greater foraging benefits to

the individual feeding on it (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1), does not appears to have such

88

an energetic demand to the territorial individual. It can be assumed that the expulsion (active

defense) has more energetic expenditures than the vocalization and the encounter, each also

having a lower frequency of occurrence. Therefore, the territorial behavior might be a good

strategy for the individual, one that can bring great benefits with low costs. These costs are

not minimal as in some species that follow some very simple movement rules in the

population; such as Pararge aegeria, the Speckled Wood Butterfly, in which the intruding

males retreat on perceiving that a territory is occupied (Davies & Houston 1984). But the

costs appear to be very low, different from other species. In some species of water birds that

exhibits feeding ground territoriality, the costs associated to the maintenance of the territory

are much greater. Trippi and Collazo (1997) have found for Semipalmated Sandpipers that

territory holders do have nearly exclusive access to higher than average prey concentrations;

but to gain this privilege, they spent large amounts of time, up until 67% of the foraging time,

on aggression and vigilance behaviors. For other species of birds, the costs of defense can

also be as heavy (e.g. Davis & Houston 1984; Temeles et al. 2005). Therefore, this reinforces

the defended territory as an economically defendable site (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1).

Yet, these social behaviors can also be considered to be received by more than one

individual (receiver) at a time. The sound in a more direct way, since it is of long range; but

the encounter and the expulsion could also be eavesdropped by an individual other then the

intended receiver (McGregor 1993). This could be helping a territorial individual in the

maintenance of its territory with less need of use of those behaviors; and thus, less energy

loss, with more time for foraging.

Davis and Houston (1984) point out for three main factors that will influence the

economic defendability of a resource: i) resource quality and distribution in space; ii) resource

distribution in time; and iii) competition for the resource. In a previous work, we had some

results that might suggest that the defense of a feeding territory in the Little Blue Heron is

more related to the distribution of the resource in space than to the competition for this

89

resource (Moralez-Silva et al. manuscrito 1). Our results in here reinforce this assumption.

The frequency of defense related behaviors are low, accounting for very little portion of the

individuals foraging time. And yet, a weak correlation was found between the number of

individuals on the mud bank (potential intruders) and the number of expulsions on one day of

foraging. The increase in the frequency of aggressive contests does not seams to increase with

the number of competitors, as predicted by resource defense theory, and as observed for other

species (Chapman & Kramer 1996; Johnson et al. 2004). The increase in the number of

competitors might not have been great enough to influence the number of expulsions, and

more variables probably play different, yet important roles in the resource defense dynamics

of the Little Blue Heron territorial behavior. Yet, if we consider multiple intruders

simultaneously, situation observed for the species in the area, this dynamics of aggression

could change (Switzer et al. 2001; Dubois et al. 2003).

Although not marked, the territorial individual appears to be the same individual

trough the entire study period. It was always one of the first ones to arrive, landing always

within the same area (its territory), never on another area; and even if it was not the first one

to arrive at the feeding site, its territory would never be occupied by another individual other

then it self. Other individuals where observed to try to land on its territory, but always after it

had already arrived. Yet, it was observed to wait until 156 min perched in the trees to begin

foraging in one day. Nota (2003) have observed for the Little Egret, Egretta garzetta,

individuals which were said to have a stable territoriality. Those individuals demonstrate a

similar behavior of usually go to the same foraging sites from the roosting sites every day and

defend their foraging areas, as observed by us for the Little Blue Heron in here. Yet,

territories are often defended for an extended period, suggesting that individuals may profit

from a long-term view of their territorial occupation (Davis & Houston 1984; Stamps &

Tollestrup 1984; Stamps 1994; Switzer et al. 2001).

90

Therefore, the apparent low cost defense of a beneficial feeding territory by one

individual trough an entire feeding winter can be the case for the Little Blue Heron in the

Cananéia estuary.

Acknowledgments

This article represents part of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the M.S. degree in the Departamento de Fisiologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do

Norte, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Finantial support, in form of a scholarship, is

acknowledged from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(CAPES). A grateful thanks to the Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC) and its personnel

for furnishing equipments and physical support. And to friends and family, always important.

Literature Cited

Aubin, T., Mathevon, N., Silva, M. L. da, Vielliard, J. M. & Sebe, F. 2004: How a simple and

stereotyped acoustic signal transmits individual information: the song of the White-browed

Warbler, Basileuterus leucoblepharus. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 76, 335-

344.

Bayer, R. 1984: Vocalizations of Great Blue Herons at Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Colonial

Waterbirds 7, 35–44.

Bee, M. A. & Gerhardt, H. C. 2002: Individual Voice Recognition in a Territorial Frog (Rana

catesbeiana). Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269, 1443-1448.

Beissinger, S. R. 1997: Integrating behavior into conservation biology: Potentials and

limitations. In: Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild (Clemmons, J. R. &

Buchholz, R., eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23-47.

Brown, J. L. & Orians, G. H. 1970: Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annual Revue of

Ecological Systematics 1, 239-262.

91

Bryan, A. L., Jr., Gaines, K. F. and Eldridge, C. S. 2002: Coastal habitat use by Wood Storks

during the non-breeding season. Waterbirds 25, 429-435.

Chapman, M. R. & Kramer, D. L. 1996: Guarded resources: The effect of intruder number on

the tactics and success of defenders and intruders. Animal Behaviour 52, 83-94.

Custer, T. W. & Osborn, R. G. 1978: Feeding habitat use by colonially breeding herons,

egrets, and ibises in North Carolina. Auk 95, 733–743.

Davies, N. B. 1976: Food, flocking and territorial behaviour of the Pied Wagtail (Motacilla

alba yarrellii Gould) in winter. The Journal of Animal Ecology 45, 235-253.

Davis, N. B. & Houston, A. I. 1984: Territory economics. In: Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach, 2nd edn (Krebs, J. R. & N. B. Davis, eds). Blackwell Scientific

Publications, Oxford, pp. 148-169.

Dubois, F., Giraldeau, L. A. & Grant, J. W. A. 2003: Resource defense in a group foraging

context. Behavioural Ecology 14, 2–9.

Garrido, J. R., Sarasa, C. G. & Fernández-Cruz, M. 2002: Intraspecific kleptoparasitism in the

Cattle Egret. Journal of Field Ornithology 73, 185-190.

Johnson, C. A., Grant, J. W. A. & Giraldeau, L. A. 2004: The effect of patch size and

competitor number on aggression among foraging house sparrows. Behavioral Ecology 15,

412-418.

Krebs, J. R. & Davis, N. B. 1997: Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 3rd edn.

Blackwell Science Publications, Oxford.

Kroodsma, D. E. & Byers, B. E. 1991: The function(s) of bird song. American Zoologist 31,

318-328.

Kushlan, J. A. 1981: Resource use strategies of wading birds. Wilson Bulletin 93,145-163.

Maccarone, A. D. & Brzorad, J. N. 2005. Foraging microhabitat selection by wading birds in

a tidal estuary, with implications for conservation. Waterbirds 28, 383-391.

92

Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. 1995: Definitions of territory used in the study of variation in

vertebrate spacing system. Animal Behaviour 49, 1581-1597.

Martin, P. & Bateson, P. 1993: Measuring Behavior. Cambridge University Press, London.

Mason, A. C. 1996: Territoriality and the function of song in the primitive acoustic insect

Cyphoderris monstrosa (Orthoptera: Haglidae). Animal Behaviour 51, 211-224.

McGregor, P. K. 1993: Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification,

ranging and eavesdropping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,

Series B 340, 237-244.

Milinski, M. & Parker, G. A. 1991: Competition for resources. In: Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach, 3rd edn (Krebs, J. R. & N. B. Davis, eds). Blackwell Scientific

Publications, Oxford, pp. 137-169.

Morin, P. J. 1999: Habitat selection. In: Community Ecology (Morin, P. J., ed). Blackwell

Science Publications, Oxford, pp. 259-273

Nota, Y. 2003: Effects of body size and sex on foraging territoriality of the Little Egret

(Egretta garzeta) in Japan. Auk 120, 791-798.

Olmos, F., Silva e Silva, R. & Prado, A. 2001: Breeding season diet of Scarlet Ibises


Waterbirds 24, 50-57.

Olmos, F. & Silva e Silva, R. 2002: Breeding biology of the Little Blue Heron (Egretta

caerulea) in southeastern Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical 13, 17-30.

Richner, H. 1986: Winter feeding strategies of individually marked herons. Animal Behaviour

34, 881-886.

Ripmeester, E. A. P, de Vries, A. M. & Slabbekoorn, H. 2007: Do blackbirds signal

motivation to fight with their song?. Ethology 113, 1021-1028.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1983: Foraging behavior of seven species of herons in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Colonial Waterbirds 6, 11–23.

93

Searcy, W. A., Anderson, R. C. & Nowicki, S. 2006: Bird song as a signal of aggressive

intent. Behavioural Ecology Sociobiology 60, 234-241.

Stamps, J. A. 1994: Territorial behavior – testing the assumptions. Advances Study Behavior

23, 173-232.

Stamps, J. A. & Tollestrup, K. 1984: Prospective resource defense in a territorial species.

American Naturalist 123, 99-114.

Stamps, J. A. & Krishnan, V. V. 1994: Territory acquisition in lizards: II. Establishing social

and spatial relationships. Animal Behaviour 47, 1987-1400.

Swennen, C. K. and Yu, Y. 2005: Food and feeding behavior of the black-faced spoonbill.

Waterbirds 28, 19-27.

Switzer, P. V., Stamps, J. A. & Mangel, M. 2001: When should a territory resident attack?

Behaviour 62, 749-759.

Temeles, E. T., Goldman, R. B. & Kudla, A. U. 2005: Foraging and territory economics of

sexually dimorphic Purple-throated Caribs (Eulampis Jugularis) on three Heliconia Morphs.

Auk 122, 187-204.

Tripp, K. J. & Collazo, J. A. 1997. Non-breeding territoriality of Semipalmated Sandpipers.

Wilson Bulletin 109, 630-642.







94

Ethology – Formatação.

Content

The Abstract should introduce the topic, the main objective, the main result(s) and the

principle conclusion(s). The Introduction should explain the main questions addressed in the

paper. Continuity with earlier work on the subject should be established by reference to recent

papers or reviews, which need not themselves be summarized. Experimental methods must be

clearly described and include information essential for replication, but trivial details should be

omitted. In the Discussion, the major findings should be summarized as a reminder only, not

repeated.

To avoid unnecessary delays in the evaluation process of your manuscript, please consult the

checklist of methods description

Format

Initial submission

As a rule the manuscript should be arranged as follows: Title page, Abstract (max. 300

words), Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional),

Acknowledgements, Literature Cited. If necessary, these sections may be structured using

further subtitles. When different methods apply to different subsections (e.g. describing stand-

alone experiments) the Methods and Results for that specific section can be combined.

Manuscript layout must have double-line spacing, a left-hand margin of at least 2.5 cm and

line numbers throughout the text (use continuous line numbers, if possible). Pages should be

numbered from the title page to the figure legends inclusive. Each figure and table should be

placed on a separate page.

Both English and American spelling is permissible, but spelling should be used consistently

throughout the manuscript.

The first page of the manuscript must contain the following information: title; first name and

further initials and surname(s) of the author(s); name and full institutional address of each

author (including an E-mail address if available) - if there are multiple authors add

'(corresponding author)' after the appropriate name; running title (should not exceed 72

characters, including spaces); the total number of words in the text including the title,

references and figure legends.

Length

Papers, including figures, tables, literature cited, etc. should normally not exceed 12

printed pages which corresponds to approximately 5000 words.

95

References

The list of references must include all references cited in the text and no additional

references. References are to be arranged alphabetically and in chronological order. The name

of the cited journal should be abbreviated according to the abbreviation used by the journal

concerned. Otherwise use the abbreviations contained in the 'Bibliographic Guide for Editors

and Authors' from Chemical Abstracts, or the 'World List of Scientific Periodicals', 4th ed.,

London 1963-65. Anonymous contributions should be placed at the beginning of the list of

references.

References should be formatted as in the following examples:

Greenfield, M. D. & Rand, A. S. 2000: Frogs have rules: selective attention algorithms

regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 106, 331-347.

Zar, J. H. 1996: Biostatisitcal Analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Johnstone, R. A. 1997: The Evolution of Animal Signals. In: Behavioural Ecology, 4th edn

(Krebs, J.R. & Davies, N. B., eds). Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 155-178.

Schütz, D. 1998: Sexual size dimorphism in a shell-brooding cichlid Lamprologus callipterus.

Ph.D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Munich, Germany.

Articles not yet published may only be cited if their place of publication is certain.

They must be denoted by the expression 'in press'. Otherwise, unpublished manuscripts

should be referred to in the text as 'author name(s), pers. comm.'; or 'own data'.

Reference to the quoted literature in the text should be given as follows: Smith (1998)

or (Smith 1998). Only the first author should be cited followed by 'et al.' when there are more

than two authors (Smith et al. 1999). Multiple references to the same author and year should

be labelled a, b, etc. according to the order in which they are .rst cited in the text. Series of

references should be in chronological order (Smith 1997a, b; Miller & Smith 2001). Literal

quotations should be between quotes ''...'' and must contain the page number(s) of the original

reference.

96

Discussão/Conclusão Geral

Segundo Brown & Orians (1970), para se demonstrar a existência de um território em

uma dada espécie, é necessário observar/demonstrar três fatores simultaneamente: um

território deve ser 1) uma área fixa, que pode mudar muito pouco com o passar do tempo; 2)

defendido por um indivíduo, de forma ativa ou passiva; 3) de uso exclusivo. Todos os três

fatores foram demonstrados para a garça-azul no presente estudo, sendo então registrada a

territorialidade alimentar para a espécie. Outros autores haviam sugerido a existência desta

territorialidade (Palmer 1962), mas não a haviam provado com dados. Outras espécies que

tiveram a territorialidade alimentar registrada são a Egretta garzeta (Nota 2003, Yamada

1994), a Ardea cinerea (Marion 1989, Richner 1986) e a Egretta sacra (Recher 1972).

É geralmente assumido que o alimento é o recurso defendido quando territórios são

estabelecidos fora do período reprodutivo (Brown & Orians 1970). Ainda, um dos três

principais fatores favorecendo a territorialidade, apontados por Davis & Houston (1984), é a

qualidade do recurso e sua distribuição. O recurso alimentar das garças que forrageiam nos

baixios da região de Cananéia são principalmente a macro fauna bentônica, crustáceos,

moluscos e peixes (ver Olmos & Silva e Silva 2003, Olmos et al. 2001). Em um estudo desta

macro fauna, em diversos baixios da região, Varoli & Souza (1990) encontraram uma maior

quantidade destes organismos em áreas mais próximas à margem (ou ao mangue). Nesta

mesma área, no baixio do Brocuanha (setores 1 e 2), o presente trabalho verificou maiores

taxas de captura e sucesso para os indivíduos forrageando nesta; assim como menores taxas

de investimento, ou passos/min e tentativas de captura/min. Nesta área é que está

compreendido o território de um indivíduo territorial. Desta forma, os indivíduos estariam

defendendo áreas com abundante recurso alimentar, o que pode conferir a um indivíduo

territorial benefícios energéticos, como observado por Turpie (1995) e Tripp & Collazo

(1997). Assim, esta poderia ser uma das razões pela qual um indivíduo de garça-azul defende

um território em um baixio lodoso, como apresentado neste trabalho.

A defesa de um território pode ser feita tanto de uma forma passiva, com a utilização

de marcas de cheiro, vocalizações e posturas de exibição; quanto de uma forma ativa, mais

agressiva, com perseguição, confronto e luta (Davis & Houston 1984, Brown & Orians 1970).

Para a garça-azul, o presente estudo observou três comportamentos relacionados com a defesa

territorial: 1) o encontro agonístico, através de posturas de exibição; 2) o chamado Ahh-ahh-

ahh, ou vocalização; e 3) a expulsão, defesa territorial com perseguição de um intruso.

Entre as posturas de exibição observadas para a espécie, duas já são descritas na

literatura. A postura “Spread-wings” (em Bayer 1984) e a postura “Withdraw Crouch” (em

97

Meyerriecks 1960). As outras duas são novas na literatura. Uma é a postura Estendida (ou

“Extended”) e a outra é a postura Asas-alinhadas (ou “Wings-lined-up”). Dentre os Ardeidae,

é considerado que as posturas de exibição evoluíram como parte do repertório comunicativo

dos indivíduos, agindo no canal visual de comunicação entre indivíduos (Mock 1976). As

posturas registradas não são utilizadas em um contexto solitário, elas são utilizadas nas

interações entre indivíduos. Todas as posturas de exibição, assim como as interações entre

indivíduos observadas no presente trabalho, são utilizadas em um contesto agonístico;

considerando-se agonístico o comportamento que pode ser um ataque real, ou simplesmente

envolver comportamentos de ameaça, posturas e gestos (Kandell et al. 1995). Desta forma,

estas interações derivam de disputas, as quais são travadas dentro da área alimentar, levando a

uma boa vantagem para o “vencedor” destas disputas, um acesso mais exclusivo do recurso

alimentar.

Um indivíduo de garça-azul territorial utiliza-se então destes comportamentos para a

defesa de uma área exclusiva dentro do habitat alimentar. O conceito de “defesa econômica”

(“economic defendability”) proposto por Brown (1964) diz que somente esperaríamos que um

animal gastasse tempo e energia interagindo com outros para defender um território se este

comportamento trouxesse mais benefícios líquidos do que outro comportamento alternativo

(Davis & Houston 1984). No presente estudo, foi observado que a área defendida (uso

exclusivo) pelo indivíduo territorial é maior do que a área média restante para cada um do

restante de indivíduos forrageando no baixio; além de ser em uma área que traz maior sucesso

de forrageio, com menores gastos. Ainda, foi também observado que o tempo gasto com os

comportamentos relacionados à defesa, pelo indivíduo territorial, ocupa apenas, em média,

1,30% do tempo gasto em um dia de atividade de forrageando na área. Outras espécies que

apresentam comportamento territorial passam muito mais tempo em comportamentos de

defesa e tem custos de defesa bem mais pesados (Temeles et al. 2005, Tripp & Collazo 1997,

Davis & Houston 1984). Assim, o comportamento territorial da garça-azul aparentemente tem

um custo baixo em relação aos benefícios que traz para o indivíduo; caso contrário não teria

sido selecionado durante o processo evolutivo.

O ambiente físico afeta as vidas dos Ciconiiformes de variadas formas, desde

mudanças em curto prazo das condições climáticas até mudanças sazonais, especialmente dos

recursos alimentares (Kushlan 1981). Mudanças locais, mais restritas, como as variações

diárias da maré, em ambientes costeiros, também têm influência nos comportamentos destas

aves, influenciando assim a utilização do habitat (Maccarone & Brzorad 2005, Yu &

Swennen 2004, Bryan et al. 2002, Richner 1986, Rodgers 1983, Custer & Osborn 1978). No

presente estudo pode-se verificar que a maré também tem influência sobre o comportamento

98

territorial da garça-azul, intervindo na utilização dos diferentes comportamentos relacionados

à defesa, principalmente a expulsão e a vocalização.

Destes comportamentos, a expulsão teve maior freqüência de ocorrência, no geral, do

que a vocalização e o encontro; assim como ocupou, em média, 50% de tempo gasto nestes

comportamentos. Desta forma, é possível que a defesa territorial seja utilizada principalmente

para a defesa ativa, enquanto que os outros dois comportamentos sirvam mais como aviso e

sinalização da posição de dominância que o indivíduo territorial ocupa no grupo. Segundo

Stamps & Krishnan (1994), indivíduos territoriais dominam os não-territoriais do grupo. O

uso de vocalizações e cantos em disputas territoriais não é incomum, tendo sido observado

nas interações territoriais de várias espécies, não somente de aves (Searey et al. 2006, Aubin

et al. 2004, Bee & Gerhardt 2002, Mason 1996). Para a garça-azul, observou-se no presente

estudo que a vocalização é realizada em uma baixa freqüência de amplitude, ou seja, alto

potencial de dispersão no ambiente, principalmente em um ambiente aberto; é utilizada

principalmente por indivíduos territoriais; é utilizada principalmente como um

comportamento exclusivo, ou seja, não associado ao comportamento de expulsão; e as

primeiras vocalizações do indivíduo territorial ao chegar no baixio duram significativamente

mais tempo do que as do restante do período de forrageio. Desta forma, aparentemente esta

vocalização (o chamado Ahh-ahh-ahh) em particular é importante no contexto social do

forrageio para a espécie. Sendo um comportamento que pode estar ajudando o indivíduo

territorial a proclamar e manter sua posição de dominância no grupo.

A dinâmica comportamental da utilização do habitat alimentar de uma espécie é uma

de suas características de grande valor para o entendimento de sua biologia; principalmente

quando se olha para o quadro de conservação e preservação atual. Os comportamentos

relacionados às atividades de forrageio afetam diretamente as chances de sobrevivência e

reprodução de um indivíduo, atuando sobre o processo de seleção natural deste. Segundo

Beissinger (1997), o conhecimento das dinâmicas comportamentais de uma espécie é

atualmente considerado fundamental para promover e manter ações de conservação para a

preservação da espécie. Ainda, de acordo com Tripp & Collazo (1997), a identificação de

componentes da territorialidade não-reprodutiva de uma espécie é necessária para um futuro

entendimento de sua possível significância adaptativa. O presente trabalho traz novos e

importantes aspectos do comportamento de uma espécie bastante conhecida, porém pouco

estudada na América do Sul; reforçando a importância das interações sociais de indivíduos

forrageando em grandes grupos, em áreas de alto valor ecológico.

Palmer (1962) observou, para a garça-azul, indivíduos defendendo vigorosamente

territórios alimentares fora do período reprodutivo. Isto é pouca informação para afirmar a

99

real existência de territórios alimentares para a espécie. Porém, com os resultados

apresentados neste trabalho, reforça-se a concepção desta existência.

Nossos resultados mostraram que em um dia de observação o indivíduo defendendo

um território no baixio é sempre o mesmo, visto que este chegava à área no inicio do período

alimentar e permanecia até seu final. Este indivíduo, embora não marcado para identificação

individual, parece ser sempre o mesmo durante todo o período do estudo. Este era sempre um

dos primeiros a chegar à área, pousando sempre dentro da mesma área (seu território). Mesmo

não sendo o primeiro indivíduo a chegar ao baixio, seu território nunca era ocupado por outro

individuo que não ele próprio. Outros indivíduos eram observados tentando pousar em seu

território, mas sempre após a sua chegada. Ainda, o indivíduo territorial foi observado

esperando até 156 min, empoleirado no mangue, antes de poder começar a forragear. Assim, a

aparente defesa pouco custosa de um território alimentar por um único indivíduo por um

período de invernada inteiro parece ser o caso da garça-azul no estuário de Cananéia.

As interações sociais entre garças forrageando são, então, diversas e bastante

importantes na definição do sucesso/insucesso no uso do recurso alimentar, refletindo assim

no futuro do indivíduo, sua sobrevivência e reprodução.

100

Bibliografia citada na Introdução e Discussão/Conclusão Geral

Aubin, T., Mathevon, N., Silva, M. L. da, Vielliard, J. M. & Sebe, F. 2004. How a simple

and stereotyped acoustic signal transmits individual information: the song of the White-

browed Warbler, Basileuterus leucoblepharus. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 76,

335-344.

Barja, I., de Miguel, F. J. & Barcena, F. 2005. Fecal marking behavior of Iberian wolf in

different zones of their territory. Folia Zoologica, 54, 21-29.

Battley, P. F., Poot, M., Wiersma, P., Gordon, C., Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. & Piersma, T.

2003. Social foraging by waterbirds in shallow coastal lagoons in Ghana. Waterbirds, 26, 26-

34.

Bayer, R. 1984. Foraging ground displays of Great Blue Herons at Yaquina Estuary, Oregon.

Colonial Waterbirds, 7, 45–54.

Bee, M. A. & Gerhardt, H. C. 2002. Individual Voice Recognition in a Territorial Frog

(Rana catesbeiana). Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 269, 1443-1448.

Beissinger, S. R. 1997. Integrating behavior into conservation biology: potentials and

limitations. In: Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild (Org. por J. R.

Clemmons & R. Buchholz), pp. 23-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blanchard, R.J., Ohl, F., van Kampen, M., Blanchard, D.C. & Fuchs, E. 2001. Attack and

defense in conspecific fighting in tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri). Aggressive Behavior, 27,

139-148.

Brotons, L. 2000. Winter territoriality and irruptive behavior in the paridae. Auk, 117, 807-

811.

Brown, J. L. 1964. The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bulletin,

76, 160-169.

Brown, J. L. & Orians, G. H. 1970. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annual Revue of

Ecological Syztematics, 1, 239-262.

Bryan, A. L. B., Jr., Gaines, K. F. & Eldridge, C. S. 2002. Coastal habitat use by Wood

Storks during the non-breeding season. Waterbirds, 25, 429-435.

Caldwell, G. S. 1981. Attraction to tropical mixed-species heron flocks: proximate

mechanism and consequences. Behavioural Ecology Sociobiology, 8, 99–103.

Caldwell, G. S. 1986. Predation as a selective force on foraging herons: effects of plumage

color and flocking. Auk, 103, 494–505.

Custer, T. W. & Osborn, R. G. 1978. Feeding habitat use by colonially breeding herons,

egrets, and ibises in North Carolina. Auk, 95, 733–743.

101

Davis, N. B. & Houston, A. I. 1984. Territory economics. In: Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach (Org. por J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 148-169. Oxford:

Blackwell Science Publications.

Davies, N. B. 1976. Food, flocking and territorial behaviour of the Pied Wagtail (Motacilla

alba yarrellii Gould) in winter. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 45, 235-253.

Erwin, R. M. 1983. Feeding habitat of nesting wading birds: spatial use and social

influences. Auk, 100, 960-970.

Gautier, P. & Miaud, C. 2003. Fecal pellets used as an economic territorial marker in two

terrestrial alpine salamanders. Ecoscience, 10, 134-139.

Gautier, P., Léna, J. P. & Miaud, C. 2004. Responses to conspecific scent marks and the

ontogeny of territorial marking in immature terrestrial salamanders. Behavioral Ecology

Sociobiology, 55, 447-453.

George, T. L. 1987. Behavior of territorial male and female Townsends Solitaires (Myadestes

townsendi) in winter. American Midland Naturalist, 118, 121-127.

Gese. M. N. 2001. Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National

Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why. Canadian Journal Zoology, 79, 980-987.

Girardeau, L. A. & Caraco, T. 2000. Social Foraging Theory. Princeton: MBA, Princeton.

González, J. A. 1996. Kleptoparasitism in mixed-species foraging flocks of wading birds

during the late dry season in the llanos of Venezuela. Colonial Waterbirds, 19, 226-231.

Götmark, F., Winkler, D. W. & Anderson, M. 1986. Flock-feeding on fish schools

increases individual success in gulls. Nature, 319, 589-591.

Hoem, S. A., Melis, C., Linnell, J. D. C. & Andersen. R. 2007. Fighting behaviour in

territorial male roe deer Capreolus capreolus: the effects of antler size and residence.

European Journal Wildlife Research, 53, 1-8.

Jaeger, M. M., Pandit, R. K. & Haque, E. 1996. Seasonal differences in territorial behavior

by golden jackals in Bangladesh: howling versus confrontation. Journal of Mammalogy, 77,

768-775.

Kandell, E. R., Schwartz, J. H. & Jessell, T. M. 1995. Essentials of Neuroscience and

Behavior. Connecticut: Appleton & Lange.

Kelly, J. F., Gawlik, D. F. & Kieekbusch, D. K. 2003. An updated account of wading bird

foraging behavior. Wilson Bulletin, 115, 105-107.

Kersten, M., Britton, R. H., Dugan, P. J. & Hafner, H. 1991. Flock feeding and food

intake in little egrets: the effects of prey distribution and behavior. Journal of Animal

Ecology, 60, 241-252.

102

Kohn, N. R., Jaeger, R. G. & Franchebois, J. 2005. Effects of intruder number and sex on

territorial behavior of female red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus: Plethodontidae).

Journal of Herpetology, 39, 645-648.

Koronkiewicz, T. J., Sogge, M. K., Van Riper, C. & Paxton, E. H. 2006. Territoriality, site

fidelity, and survivorship of Willow Flycatchers wintering in Costa Rica. Condor, 108, 558-

570.

Krebs, J. R. 1974. Colonial nesting as and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food

resources in the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). Behaviour, 51, 99–134.

Krebs, J. R. 1978. Colonial nesting in birds, with special reference to the Ciconiiformes. In:

Wading birds (Org. por A. Sprunt, J. C. Ogden & S. Winckler), pp. 299-324. New York:

National Audubon Society.

Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. 1993. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Oxford:


Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. 1997: Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach.

Oxford: Blackwell Science Publications.

Kroodsma, D. E. & Byers, B. E. 1991. The function(s) of bird song. American Zoologist, 31,

318-328.

Kushlan, J. A. 1976a. Feeding behavior of North American herons. Auk, 93, 86–94.

Kushlan, J. A. 1976b. Wading bird predation in a seasonally fluctuation pond. Auk, 93, 464-

476.

Kushlan, J. A. 1977. The significance of plumage colour in the formation of feeding

aggregations of Ciconiiforms. Ibis, 119, 361-364.

Kushlan, J. A. 1978a. Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Wading birds (Org. por A.

Sprunt, J. C. Ogden & S. Winckler), pp. 249-297. New York: National Audubon Society.

Kushlan, J. A. 1978b. Commensalism in the Little Blue Heron. Auk, 95, 677–681.

Kushlan, J. A. 1981. Resource use strategies of wading birds. Wilson Bulletin, 93, 145-163.

Kushlan, J. A., Morales, G. & Frohring, P. C. 1985. Foraging niche relationships of

wading birds in tropical wet savannas. Ornithological Monographs, 36, 663–682.

Lederer, R. J. 1977. Winter territoriality and foraging behavior of the Townsend's Solitaire.

American Midiland Naturalist, 97, 101-109.

Maccarone, A. D. & Brzorad, J. N. 2005. Foraging microhabitat selection by wading birds

in a tidal estuary, with implications for conservation. Waterbirds, 28, 383-391.

Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. 1995. Definitions of territory used in the study of variation in

vertebrate spacing system. Animal Behaviour, 49, 1581-1597.

103

Marion, L. 1989. Territorial feeding and colonial breeding are not mutually exclusive: The

case of the Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea). Journal of Animal Ecology, 58, 693-710.

Markus, N. 2002. Behaviour of the black flying fox Pteropus alecto: 2. Territoriality and

courtship. Acta Chiropterologica, 4, 153-166.

Mason, A. C. 1996. Territoriality and the function of song in the primitive acoustic insect

Cyphoderris monstrosa (Orthoptera: Haglidae). Animal Behaviour, 51, 211-224.

Master, T. L. 1992. Composition, structure, and dynamics of mixed-species foraging

aggregations in a southern New Jersey salt marsh. Colonial Waterbirds, 15, 66–74.

Master, T. L., Frankel, M. & Russell, M. 1993. Benefits of foraging in mixed-species

wader aggregations in a southern New Jersey saltmarsh. Colonial Waterbirds, 16, 149–157.

Mayers, J. P., Connors, P. G. & Pitelka, F. A. 1979. Territoriality in non-breeding

shorebirds. In: Shorebirds in marine environments (Org. por F. A. Pitelka), pp. 231-246.

Studies in avian biology Nº 2.

Meanley, B. 1955. A nesting study of the Little Blue Heron in eastern Arkansas. Wilson

Bulletin, 67, 84–99.

Mertl-Millhollen, A. S. 2006. Scent marking as resource defense by female Lemur catta.

American Journal of Primatology, 68, 605-621.

Meyerriecks, A. J. 1960. Comparative breeding behavior of four species of North American

herons. Publication Nuttall. Ornithological Club Nº 2.

Milinski, M. & Parker, G. A. 1991. Competiton for resources. In: Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach (Org. por J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 137-169. Oxford:


Mock, D. W. 1976. Pair formation displays of the Great Blue Heron. Wilson Bulletin, 88,

185–230.

Morin, P. J. 1999. Community Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Science Publications.

Moulton, C. E., Brady, R. S. & Belthoff, R. 2004. Territory defense of nesting Burrowing

Owls: responses to simulated conspecific intrusion. Journal Field Ornithology, 75, 288-295.

Nice, M. M. 1941. The role of territory in bird life. American Midland Naturalist, 26, 441-

487.

Nota, Y. 2003. Effects of body size and sex on foraging territoriality of the Little Egret

(Egretta garzeta) in Japan. Auk, 120, 791-798.

Oliver, C. M., Skinner, J. D. & Van der Merwe, D. 2006. Territorial behaviour in southern

impala rams (Aepyceros melampus Lichtenstein). African Journal of Ecology, 45, 142-148.

104

Olmos, F., Silva e Silva, R. & Prado, A. 2001. Breeding season diet of Scarlet Ibises


Waterbirds, 24, 50-57.

Olmos, F. & Silva e Silva, R. 2002. Breeding biology of the Little Blue Heron Egretta

caerulea in southeastern Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical, 13, 17-30.

Olmos, F. & Silva e Silva, R. 2003. Guará: ambiente, flora e fauna dos manguezais de

Santos-Cubatão. São Paulo: Empresa das Artes.

Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 1: loons through flamingos.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Peters, R. P. & Mech, L. D. 1975. Scent-marking in wolves. American Scientist, 63, 628-

637.

Powell, G. V. N. 1987. Habitat use by wading birds in a subtropical estuary: implications of

hydrology. Auk, 104, 740–749.

Pratt, H. 1980. Directions and timing of Great Blue Heron foraging flights from a California

colony: implications for social facilitation of food finding. Wilson Bulettin, 92, 489-496.

Pyle, P. & Howell, S. G. 2004. Ornamental plume development and the “prealternate molts”

of herons and egrets. Wilson Bulletin, 116, 287-292.

Recher, H. F. 1972. Territorial behaviour of the Reef Heron Egretta sacra. Emu, 72, 126-

130.

Recher, H. F. & Recher, J. A. 1969. Comparative foraging efficiency of adult and immature

Little Blue Herons (Florida caerulea). Animal Behaviour, 17, 320–322.

Richner, H. 1986. Winter feeding strategies of individually marked herons. Animal

Behaviour, 34, 881-886.

Ricklefs, R. E. 2001. The Economy of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ripmeester, E. A. P., de Vries, A. M. & Slabbekoorn, H. 2007. Do blackbirds signal

motivation to fight with their song? Ethology, 113, 1021-1028.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1978a. Display characteristics and frequency of breeding by subadult

Little Blue Herons. In: Wading birds (Org. por A. Sprunt, J. C. Ogden & S. Winckler), pp. 35-

39. New York: National Audubon Society.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1980a. Little Blue Heron breeding behavior. Auk, 97, 371–384.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1980b. Breeding ecology of the Little Blue Heron on the west coast of

Florida. Condor, 82, 161–169.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1983. Foraging behavior of seven species of herons in Tampa Bay,

Florida. Colon. Waterbirds, 6, 11–23.

105

Rodgers, J. A., Jr. 1987. Breeding chronology and reproductive success of Cattle Egrets and

Little Blue Herons on the west coast of Florida, USA. Colon. Waterbirds, 10, 38–44.

Savalli, U. M. 1993. The behavior of male yellow mantled widowbirds Euplectes macrourus

in western Kenya. Ostrich, 64, 57-62.

Sacwab, E. R. & Stout, J. F. 1991. Aggressive communication by Larus glaucescens. 7, the

role of the intruder. Behaviour, 117, 161-181.

Searcy, W. A., Anderson, R. C. & Nowicki, S. 2006. Bird song as a signal of aggressive

intent. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology, 60, 234-241.

Schwab, E. R. & Stout, J. F. 1991. Aggressive communication by Larus-glaucescens. 7. The

role of the intruder. Behaviour, 117, 161-181.

Shelly, T. O. 2004. Scent marking by males of the mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata

(Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 17, 709-722.

Sick, H. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira, Uma Introdução. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Nova

fronteira S. A.

Sillero-Zubiri, C. & Macdonald, D. W. 1998. Scent-marking in free-ranging tigers,

Panthera tigris. Animal Behaviour, 56, 137–46.

Simpson, M. J. A. 1968. The display of the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Animal

Behavior Monographs, 1, 1-73.

Smith, J. P. 1995. Foraging sociability of nesting wading birds (Ciconiiformes) at Lake

Okeechobee, Florida. Wilson Bulletin, 107, 437–451.

Snowdon, T. C. 1999. O significado da pesquisa em comportamento animal. Estudos de

Psicologia, 4, 365-373.

Sogge, M. K., Koronkiewicz, T. J., van Riper III, C. & Durst, L. D. 2007. Willow

Flycatcher nonbreeding territory defense bahavior in Costa Rica. Condor, 109, 475-480.

Stamps, J. 1994. Territorial behavior: testing the assumptions. Advances Study Behavior, 23,

173-232.

Stamps, J. A. & Krishnan, V. V. 1994. Territory acquisition in lizards: II. Establishing

social and spatial relationships. Animal Behaviour, 47, 1987-1400.

Temeles, E. T., Goldman, R. B. & Kudla, A. U. 2005. Foraging and territory economics of

sexually dimorphic Purple-throated Caribs (Eulampis Jugularis) on three Heliconia Morphs.

Auk, 122, 187-204.

Tripp, K. J. & Collazo, J. A. 1997. Non-breeding territoriality of semipalmated sandpipers.

Wilson Bulletin, 109, 630-642.

Turner, G. F. 1994. The fighting tactics of male mouthbrooding cichlids: the effects of size

and residency. Animal Behaviour, 47, 655-662.

106

Turpie, J. K. 1995. Non-breeding territoriality: causes and consequences of seasonal and

individual variation in grey plover Pluvialis squatarola behaviour. The Journal of Animal

Ecology, 64, 429-438.

Varoli, F. M. F. & Suosa, E. C. P. M. 1990. Macrofauna e biomassa microfitobentônica da

região estuarino-lagunar de Iguape-Cananéia (25º00’S – 48º00’W), São Paulo, Brasil. II

Simpósio de Ecossistemas da costa Sul e Sudeste Brasileira: Estrutura, Função e Manejo, 2,

95-107.

Ward, P. & Zahavi, A. 1973. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as

“information centers” for food finding. Ibis, 115, 517-534.

Werschkul, D. F. 1979. Nestling mortality and the adaptive significance of early locomotion

in the Little Blue Heron. Auk, 96, 116–130.

Werschkul, D. F. 1982. Nesting ecology of the Little Blue Heron: promiscuous behavior.

Condor, 84, 381–384.

Willard, D. E. 1977. The feeding ecology and behavior of five species of herons in

southeastern New Jersey. Condor, 79, 462–470.

Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. Harvard: Belknap Press.

Yamada, K. 1994. Feeding behavior and territoriality according to the prey types and habitats

in the Little Egret Egretta garzeta. Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 6, 36-68.

Yu, Y. & Swennen, C. K. 2004. Habitat use of the Black-faced Spoonbill. Waterbirds, 27,

129-134.

Documents

COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE … · EMMANUEL MORALEZ DA SILVA COMPORTAMENTO SOCIAL E TERRITORIALIDADE ALIMENTAR NA GARÇA-AZUL, Egretta caerulea (L.) Dissertação apresentada