Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2002 Coexistence of Owl Species in the Farmland of Southeastern Poland
Author Affiliations +

The study relates to the Little Owl Athene noctua, Barn Owl Tyto alba, Tawny Owl Strix aluco, and Longeared Owl Asio otus. By coexistence is meant the simultaneous nesting, or territorial occupation in the breeding period, of more than one owl species within the area of one farm. Altogether, 48 territories of owls in 16 farm building complexes were found. Distances between nearest-neighbour nest sites were 16-203 m. In the Little Owl the average distance was 43 m ± 28, in the Tawny Owl 159 m ± 61. The number of young in broods of Little Owls nesting in coexistence was significantly lower compared to those nesting with other owls. The considerable incidence of coexistence found was related to the specific conditions of the study area: “islands” of farm building complexes offered favourable nesting sites, while the surrounding monoculture fields provided hunting territories with only limited opportunities for nesting. The productivity of the Little Owl and Barn Owl in the study area was low, probably because of interactions brought about by nesting in close proximity.



K. M. Exo 1983. Habitat, siedlungsdiche und Brutbiologie einer niederrheinischen Steinkauzpopulation (Athene noctua). Ökol. Vögel 5: 1–40. Google Scholar


K. M. Exo 1992. Population ecology of Little Owl Athene noctua in Central Europe: a review. In: C. A. Galbraith, I. R. Taylor, S. Percival (eds). The ecology and conservation of European owls. Joint Nat. Conserv. Com., Peterborough, pp. 64–75. Google Scholar


H. Gassman , B. Baumer 1993. Zur populationsökologie des Steinkauzes (Athene noctua) in der westlichen Jülicher Börde. Erste ergebnisse einer 15 jahrigen Studie. Vogelwarte 37: 130–143. Google Scholar


J-C. Genot 1994. Breeding Biology of the Little Owl Athene noctua in France. In: B-U. Meyburg, R. D. Chancellor (eds). Raptor Conservation. World Working Gr. of Birds of Prey/The Pica Press, pp. 511–520. Google Scholar


D. E. Glue , D. Scott 1980. Breeding biology of the Little Owl. Br. Birds 73: 167–180. Google Scholar


J. Goszczyński 1981. Comparative analysis of food of owls in agrocenoses. Ekol. Pol. 29: 431– 439. Google Scholar


H. Hakkarainen , E. Korpimäki 1996. Competitive and predatory interactions among raptors: an observational and experimental study. Ecology 77: 1134–1142. Google Scholar


C. M. Herrera , F. Hiraldo 1976. Food-niche trophic relationships among European owls. Ornis Scand. 7: 29–41. Google Scholar


F. M. Jaksić 1982. Inadequacy of activity time as a niche diffrence: the case of diurnal and nocturnal raptors. Oecologia 52: 171–175. Google Scholar


I. Kitowski 1999. [The current problems of Tyto alba conservation in Zamość]. Chrońmy Przyr. Ojczystą 55: 40–47. Google Scholar


C. D. Marti 1994. Barn Owl reproduction: patterns and variations near the limit of the species distribution. Condor 96: 464–484. Google Scholar


H. Mikkola 1983. Owls of Europe. Calton. Poyser. Google Scholar


J. M. Pikula , M. Beklova , V. Kubik 1984. The breeding bionomy Tyto alba. Acta Sci. Nat. Acad. Sci. Bohemoslov, Brno 18: 1–53. Google Scholar


D. Tome 1994. Diet composition of the Long-eared Owl in central Slovenia: seasonal variation in prey use. J. Raptor Res. 28: 253–258. Google Scholar
Ignacy Kitowski "Coexistence of Owl Species in the Farmland of Southeastern Poland," Acta Ornithologica 37(2), 121-124, (1 December 2002).
Received: 1 September 2001; Accepted: 1 November 2002; Published: 1 December 2002

Back to Top