Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40427766›Full record

ArticleBiology2025

The Population Density, Interspecific Territoriality, and Philopatry of Shrikes (Laniidae) and Bushshrikes (Malaconotidae) in a Mosaic of Natural and Human-Modified Acacia Savanna.

Grzegorz Kopij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Grzegorz KopijDepartment of Vertebrate Ecology, Wrocław University of Environmental & Life Sciences, ul. Kozuchowska 5b, 51-631 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7614-1983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In avian behavioural and spatial ecology, issues related to population density, territoriality, and philopatry are especially important. These are often interrelated. The aim of this study was to analyse these behaviours in shrikes inhabiting an acacia savanna in northern Namibia (400 ha). Population densities of one shrike and four bushshrike species were studied by means of the territory mapping method. About half of the study area had been modified by humans into cultivated fields, orchards, sport fields, and human settlements. This study was conducted in 2012/2013, 2017/2018, and 2019/2020. The most common species were the Black-backed Puffback (2.5 pairs/100 ha) and Crimson-breasted Shrike (1.9); the least common were the Southern White-crowned Shrike (0.8) and Brubru (1.0). Statistics for the Brown-crowned Tchagra indicated a density of 1.5 pairs/100 ha. While the density of the Brown-crowned Tchagra and Brubru remained stable over the years, the population densities of the Black-backed Shrike, Crimson-breasted Shrike, and Southern White-crowned Shrike showed a remarkable increase over the years 2012-2020. All bushshrike species showed a preference for patches of natural savanna vegetation. This was especially evident in the Crimson-breasted Shrike and the Brubru. However, the Southern White-crowned Shrike from the shrike family did not show this preference. The presented studies showed marked interspecific differences in territoriality and philopatry. Furthermore, even within the same species, marked temporal differences were shown in population density, probably also in philopatry. Within families, these behaviours may shape both resource competition and mate competition, while between families, these behaviours only shape resource competition.

Indexed as

behavioural ecologycompetitionDryoscopus cublaEurocephalus auguitimensLaniarius atrococcineusNilaus aferpopulation densityTchagra australis

Identifiers

PMID40427766
PMCPMC12109571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.