You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Effects of Food Enrichment on Numbers and Spacing Behaviour of Red Grouse
Adam Watson, Robert Moss and Raymond Parr
Journal of Animal Ecology
Vol. 53, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 663-678
Published by: British Ecological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4542
Page Count: 16
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Grouse, Nitrogen, Chickens, Fertilizers, Birds, Breeding, Nutrition, Chicks, Hens, Animal ecology
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
(1) Heather--the main food of red grouse--was enriched by spreading nitrate fertilizer on an area where grouse numbers were fluctuating over the years. Certain aspects of the heather's response to fertilizer differed in the three experiments, but its nitrogen content increased by a similar amount in all three. (2) Numbers in the first experiment increased while grouse on the rest of the moor were breeding poorly and declining in density from a moderate peak. All grouse were removed from the experimental and control area at the start of this experiment, but not from later ones. Immigrants reared bigger broods on the fertilized area; many of the young from these broods were recruited into the breeding population, which increased and subsequently remained at a higher density than on the control for 4 years. (3) The second experiment was started while grouse on the rest of the moor were breeding well and increasing to a very high density. Fertilizing did not improve breeding, relative to the control, where grouse were breeding well anyway. However, it was followed by more immigration and increased recruitment to the breeding population, which again exceeded that on the control for 4 years. (4) Experiment 3 took place while densities were declining rapidly from the high peak during experiment 2. Numbers on the fertilized area decreased as much as on the control, until both areas held no birds. (5) When food enrichment increased numbers, this followed changes in territory size. The ratio of hens to cocks in spring also increased. (6) Natural fluctuations in numbers on control areas had a greater amplitude than increases due to fertilizer on enriched areas. Variations in our measurements of food quantity and quality could not explain changes in grouse numbers on control areas.
Journal of Animal Ecology © 1984 British Ecological Society