Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:11:12.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Display dispersion and micro-habitat use by the Malaysian peacock pheasant Polyplectron malacense in Peninsular Malaysia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Philip J. K. McGowan
Philip J. K. McGowan
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spatial distribution of displaying Malaysian peacock pheasants was documented at a site in Peninsular Malaysia. Calling males were clustered and, therefore, were not evenly distributed throughout the available habitat. The location of these clusters differed between calling periods. An objective method of assessing micro-habitat structure at the forest-floor level was devised to investigate habitat use by displaying males. Habitat structure was measured at 197 points throughout the study site, both in areas used by the pheasant and in those areas not used by the pheasant. A DECORANA ordination revealed that two gradients explained much of the variation in micro-habitat structure. Male calling clusters were located in areas that were away from the river and more stable (e.g. fewer treefalls). Within these clusters, display scrapes were sited in areas that were more stable and were more influenced by the rivers than elsewhere within the area used by the calling males. It is suggested that the environmental gradients described by the ordination are more likely to determine the position of the calling cluster than individual habitat structure variables. Within calling clusters, however, it seems probable that the presence or absence of ground-level vegetation directly influences the siting of display scrapes.

Keywords

habitat usedisplay dispersionMalaysian peacock pheasantPolyplectron malacenseMalaysiarainforest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , May 1994 , pp. 229 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Austin, M. P. 1985. Continuum concept, ordination methods and niche theory. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16:39–61.Google Scholar
Beehler, B. M. & Pruett-Jones, S. G. 1983. Display dispersion and diet of male birds of paradise: a comparison of eight species. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13:229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, E. L. 1983. The banded langur: ecology of a cotobine in West Malaysian rain forest. Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bibby, C. J., Phillips, B. N. & Seddon, A. J. E. 1985. Birds of restocked conifer plantations in Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 22:619–633.Google Scholar
Brown, J. L. & Orians, G. H. 1970. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chivers, D. J. 1974. The siamang in Malaya: a field study of a primate in a tropical rain forest. Contributions to Primatology 4:1–355.Google Scholar
Chivers, D. J. 1980. (ed.). Malayan forest primates. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, G. W. H. 1983. Behaviour of Malay peacock pheasant Polyplectron malacense (Aves: Phasianidae). Journal of Zoology, London 201:57–65.Google Scholar
Dueser, R. D. & Shugart, H. H. 1978. Microhabitats in a forest-floor small mammal fauna. Ecology 59:89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, M. S. 1981. Co-operative behavior and social organisation of the swallow-tailed manakin Chiroxiphia caudata. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 9:167–177.Google Scholar
Gauch, H. G., Whittaker, R. H. & Wentworth, T. R. 1977. A comparative study of reciprocal averaging and other ordination techniques. Journal of Ecology 65:157–174.Google Scholar
Green, R. H. 1971. A multivariate approach to the Hutchinsonian niche: bivalve molluscs of Central Canada. Ecology 52:543–556.Google Scholar
Greig-Smith, P., Austin, M. P. & Whitmore, T. C. 1967. The application of quantitative methods to vegetation survey. I. Association-analysis and principal component ordination of rain forest. Journal of Ecology 55:483–503.Google Scholar
Hill, D. A., Taylor, S., Thaxton, R., Amphlet, A. & Horn, W. 1990. Breeding bird communities of native pine forest, Scotland. Bird Study 37:133–141.Google Scholar
Hill, M. O. 1979. DECORANA: a fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, New York. User's manual facsimile re-published by Microcomputer Power, 111 Clover Lane, Ithaca, New York 14850.Google Scholar
Hill, M. O. & Gauch, H. G. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58.Google Scholar
James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat relationships among breeding birds. Wilson Bulletin 83:215–236.Google Scholar
Jones, D. 1988. Selection of incubation mound sites by the Australian brush-turkey Alectura lathami. Ibis 130:251–260.Google Scholar
Kemper, C. & Bell, D. T. 1985. Small mammals and habitat structure in lowland rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 1:5–22.Google Scholar
Lambert, F. R. 1987. Fig-eating and seed dispersal by birds in a Malaysian lowland rainforest. Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Lill, A. 1974. Social organisation and space utilization in the lek-forming white-bearded manakin M. manacus trinitatatus Hartert. Z. Tierpsychol. 36:513–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lill, A. 1976. Lek behavior in the golden-headed manakin Pipra erythrocephala in Trinidad (West Indies). Advances in Ethology 18:1–83.Google Scholar
M'Closkey, R. T. & Fieldwick, B. 1975. Ecological seperation of sympatric rodents (Peromycsus and Microtus). Journal of Mammalogy 56:119–129.Google Scholar
McGowan, P. J. K. 1990. The use of calls to determine status in the Malaysian peacock pheasants. Pp. 110–115 in Hill, D. A., Garson, P. J. & Jenkins, D. (eds). Pheasants in Asia 1989. World Pheasant Association Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Pannell, C. M. & Koziol, M. J. 1987. Ecological and phytochemical diversity of arillate seed in Aglaia (Meliaceae): a study of vertebrate dispersal in tropical seeds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B. 316:303–333.Google Scholar
Pruett-Jones, M. A. & Pruett-Jones, S. G. 1982. Spacing and distribution of bowers in MacGregor's bowerbird Amblyornis macgregoriae. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 11:25–32.Google Scholar
Raemaekers, J. J., Aldrich-Blake, F. P. G. & Payne, J. B. 1980. The forest. Pp. 29–61 in Chivers, D. J. (ed.). Malayan forest primates. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. & Winakur, J. 1969. Population ecology of desert rodent communities: habitats and environmental complexity. Ecology 50:558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotenberry, J. T. & Wiens, J. A. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, S. R. 1980. Niche and habitat relations in subalpine bird communities of the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Ecological Monographs 50:241–259.Google Scholar
Snow, D. 1976. The web of adaptation: bird studies in the American tropics. Collins, London.Google Scholar
Trail, P. W. 1985. Territoriality and dominance in the lek-breeding Guainian cock-of-the-rock. National Geographic Research 1:112–123.Google Scholar
Trail, P. W. & Adams, E. S. 1989. Active mate choice at cock-of-the-rock leks: tactics of sampling and comparison. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 25:283–292.Google Scholar
Wells, D. R. 1990. Malayan bird reports 1982–1987. Malayan Nature Journal 43:116–210.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A. & Rotenberry, J. T. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21–41.Google Scholar
Williams, B. K. 1983. Some observations on the use of discriminant analysis in ecology. Ecology 64:1283–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar