I consider relationships between functional feeding morphology and feeding ecology within a guild of dabbling ducks (Anas spp.) which co-occur year round. This waterfowl guild contains three .core. species with typical bill morphologies and four .peripheral. species which vary from the typical morphology in bill length and width or interlamellar spacing. Nearest neighbors in morphological space tend to have high ecological (dietary) overlap; i.e., similarity in morphology corresponds to similarity in ecology. Moreover, by employing Monte Carlo techniques, correlations between morphology and ecology are shown to be weaker during winter than summer, implying that species overcompensate. during winter and reduce dietary overlap even more than would be expected by similarities in bill morphology alone. Additionally, I examine morphological variation among populations of North American mallards (A. platyrhynchos) to test Roughgarden.s (1974) predictions regarding relationships between intraspecific morphological variation and interspecific competition. Specifically, morphological variation should decrease with either an increase in number of competing species or a decrease in available resources. Although populations show expected trends in bill morphology with sex (males have larger bills than females) and latitude (Bergmann.s rule), I am able to demonstrate only a weak trend in females in relationship between morphological variation and intensity of interspecific competition. Examinations of relationships between morphology and ecology should be considered during that time of year when ecological .' crunches' occur, as this should be when selection for different morphologies and feeding strategies occurs, although species may utilize other mechanisms (e.g., foraging behavior, habitat selection) which could mediate resource partitioning to a greater degree than would be expected solely by morphological differences.
Hespenheide, H.A. 1973: Ecological inferences from morphological data. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.4: 213-229.
DuBowy, P.J. 1996: Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata). In: A. Poole F. Gill, The Birds of North America, No. 217. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and American Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC.
Grant, P.R. B.R. Grant, J.N.M. Smith, I.J. Abbott, and L.K. Abbott. 1976: Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)73: 257-261.
'Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selection' () 73Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA): 257-261.
Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selectionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)73257261)| false
Grant, P.R. and D. Schluter. 1984: Interspecific competition inferred from patterns of guild structure. In D.R. Strong, D.S. Simberloff, L.G. Abele, and A.D. Thistle . Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, pp. 201-233.
Interspecific competition inferred from patterns of guild structure, () 201-233.
Interspecific competition inferred from patterns of guild structure201233)| false
Karr, J.R. and F.C. James. 1975: Eco-morphological configurations and convergent evolution in species and communities. In: M.L. Cody and J.M. Diamond. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 258-291.
Eco-morphological configurations and convergent evolution in species and communities, () 258-291.
Eco-morphological configurations and convergent evolution in species and communities258291)| false
Abbott, I, L.K Abbott, and P.R. Grant. 1977: Comparative ecology of Galapagos ground finches (Geospiza Gould): evaluation of the importance of floristic diversity and interspecific competition. Ecol. Monogr.47: 151-184.
'Comparative ecology of Galapagos ground finches (Geospiza Gould): evaluation of the importance of floristic diversity and interspecific competition' () 47Ecol. Monogr.: 151-184.
Comparative ecology of Galapagos ground finches (Geospiza Gould): evaluation of the importance of floristic diversity and interspecific competitionEcol. Monogr.47151184)| false
Madhur Anand, CAN (forest ecology, computational ecology, and ecological complexity)
S. Bagella, ITA (temporal dynamics, including succession, community level patterns of species richness and diversity, experimental studies of plant, animal and microbial communities, plant communities of the Mediterranean)
P. Batáry, HUN (landscape ecology, agroecology, ecosystem services)
P. A. V. Borges, PRT (community level patterns of species richness and diversity, sampling in theory and practice)
A. Davis, GER (supervised learning, multitrophic interactions, food webs, multivariate analysis, ecological statistics, experimental design, fractals, parasitoids, species diversity, community assembly, ticks, biodiversity, climate change, biological networks, cranes, olfactometry, evolution)
Z. Elek, HUN (insect ecology, invertebrate conservation, population dynamics, especially of long-term field studies, insect sampling)
T. Kalapos, HUN (community level plant ecophysiology, grassland ecology, vegetation-soil relationship)
G. M. Kovács, HUN (microbial ecology, plant-fungus interactions, mycorrhizas)
W. C. Liu,TWN (community-based ecological theory and modelling issues, temporal dynamics, including succession, trophic interactions, competition, species response to the environment)
L. Mucina, AUS (vegetation survey, syntaxonomy, evolutionary community ecology, assembly rules, global vegetation patterns, mediterranean ecology)
P. Ódor, HUN (plant communities, bryophyte ecology, numerical methods)
F. Rigal, FRA (island biogeography, macroecology, functional diversity, arthropod ecology)
D. Rocchini, ITA (biodiversity, multiple scales, spatial scales, species distribution, spatial ecology, remote sensing, ecological informatics, computational ecology)
F. Samu, HUN (landscape ecology, biological control, generalist predators, spiders, arthropods, conservation biology, sampling methods)