Hutcheson's method was used for testing significance in diversity of the two owl species' assemblages of prey (Hutcheson 1970), and Solow's Randomization Test was used to assess differences in diversity index values (Seaby and Henderson 2006). Bond (1977) suggested that Barn Owls capture more land birds in the Antilles and Bahamas than all other native predators combined. (2003), and Latta et al. House rats predominated in the prey of both Ashy-faced (70.8% of total biomass) and Barn (86.6%) owls, with house mice making up a modest proportion of the remaining prey identified (0.5% for Ashy-faced Owl, 1.0% for Barn Owl; Table 2). Reptiles and amphibians composed 19.2% of the prey material examined for Ashy-faced Owl and 11.1% for Barn Owl (U = 1737.5, P < 0.05; Table 2). With the exception of bats, introduced rodents were the only mammalian prey in pellets and prey remains of Hispaniolan Barn Owls. Based on those observations and distinct sites, I analyzed diets of a minimum of 21 Ashy-faced Owls and 18 Barn Owls in this study. Localities, habitats, and year of collection for prey remains and regurgitated pellets gathered from nests and roosts of Ashy-faced Owl (Tyto glaucops) and Barn Owl (T. alba) in the Dominican Republic, 1975–2004. You currently do not have any folders to save your paper to! Through competition, these exotic rodents probably aided in the decline and extinction of the original prey species; in the West Indies these were likely small native rodents (e.g., hutias [familly Capromyidae]; rice rats [Ozyzomys spp.]) Brown rats formed a small proportion of the rodents found in the Barn Owl's diet (0.9% of mass). Reptiles formed 8.5% of total prey mass for Ashy-faced Owl and 3.2% for Barn Owl (U = 892.0, P < 0.05), and amphibians comprised 2.8% for Ashy-faced Owl and 1.1% for Barn Owl (U = 170.0, P > 0.05; Table 2). Identifiable invertebrates were found within pellets and as food remains at nests and roosts, but I did not attempt to quantify these remains because of the degraded nature of much of the materials. My objectives were to: (1) investigate the food habits of the Ashy-faced Owl in several habitats, (2) compare those habits with those of the Barn Owl in Hispaniola, (3) compare locality-related diversity in the two species' diets, and (4) examine feeding niche overlap between the two species. Translations are not retained in our system. Its diet has generally been reported in broad categories; e.g., “rodents, bats, lizards, frogs, and birds” (Latta et al. 4–6 g, Bond 1977). I analyzed materials from 2223 nights of possible prey captures from 9 roost and 10 nest localities (13 nestings) for the Ashy-faced Owl. Prey remains and pellets were collected from two habitats (dry scrub/coastal woodland and montane broadleaf evergreen forest) shared by Ashy-faced and Barn owls. That bats formed a substantial proportion of prey items for both owl species in the Dominican Republic is not surprising because both Ashy-faced and Barn owls nest and roost in caves and sinkholes where several of the bat species (e.g., Jamaican fruit-eating bat [Artibeus jamaicensis], big brown bat [Eptesicus fuscus]) occur (Silva Taboada 1979). The Ashy-faced Owl had a more diverse prey base (H′ = 3.04, D = 6.32, J = 0.610) than did the Barn Owl (H′ = 2.21, D = 2.93, J = 0.444). All bat species combined made up a total of 2.6% of the prey biomass for Ashy-faced Owls, and 2.2% for Barn Owls (U = 271.0, P > 0.05). Other sources of prey masses included data on specimen labels in the MNHNSD and other collections, and published data in Silva Taboada (1979), Dunning (1993), and Arendt et al. An institutional or society member subscription is required to view non-Open Access content. Prey of Ashy-faced Owl (Tyto glaucops), as published in Wetmore and Swales (1931). In the two habitats where I collected prey remains and pellets for both species, the niche overlap index (α21) was 0.57 for montane broadleaf evergreen forest, and 0.63 for dry scrub/coastal woodland. Prey determined from regurgitated pellets and prey remains collected in five habitats at 12 localities, 1975–2004. Birds were better represented in Ashy-faced Owl diet (26.5%, Wetmore and Swales 1931; 28.8%, this study) than in the diet of Hispaniolan Barn Owls (12.3%). For size-dimorphic species, body mass was estimated by averaging mean male and female weights. Mandibles, skulls, and femurs of mammals; bones and feathers of birds; bones and skin of reptiles and amphibians; and invertebrate parts were separated and identified.
Aldi Dried Apricots,
Martin Om-18 Used,
Take Time In Life Meaning,
Open Source Web Development Projects,
College Fees Ireland 2019-2020,
Sidechain Compressor Vst,
Best Shampoo For Thick Hair,
Hefeweizen Beer Alcohol Content,