scholarly journals A Change in the Nesting Habits of the Common House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)

The Auk ◽  
1920 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 586-587
Author(s):  
R. W. Shufeldt
Author(s):  
Haley E. Hanson ◽  
Jaime E. Zolik ◽  
Lynn B. Martin

Abstract This chapter describes the common terminologies, taxonomy, morphology, geographical distribution, physiology, diet, behaviour, reproduction, habitats, ecology, invasion pathways, environmental impact, control and human use of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus).


2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. SEITZ

Modernization of agriculture, economic development and population increase after the end of the Thirty Years' War caused authorities in many parts of Germany to decree the eradication of so-called pest animals, including the House Sparrow. Farmers were given targets, and had to deliver the heads of sparrows in proportion to the size of their farms or pay fines. At the end of the eighteenth century German ornithologists argued against the eradication of the sparrows. During the mid-nineteenth century, C. L. Gloger, the pioneer of bird protection in Germany, emphasized the value of the House Sparrow in controlling insect plagues. Many decrees were abolished because either they had not been obeyed, or had resulted in people protecting sparrows so that they always had enough for their “deliveries”. Surprisingly, various ornithologists, including Ernst Hartert and the most famous German bird conservationist Freiherr Berlepsch, joined in the war against sparrows at the beginning of the twentieth century, because sparrows were regarded as competitors of more useful bird species. After the Second World War, sparrows were poisoned in large numbers. Persecution of sparrows ended in Germany in the 1970s. The long period of persecution had a significant but not long-lasting impact on House Sparrow populations, and therefore cannot be regarded as a factor in the recent decline of this species in urban and rural areas of western and central Europe.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Lowther ◽  
Calvin L. Cink

1977 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald S. Farner ◽  
Richard S. Donham ◽  
Robert A. Lewis ◽  
Philip W. Mattocks ◽  
Thomas R. Darden ◽  
...  

The Condor ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Maier ◽  
Richard M. Degraaf

Abstract Small mammals, such as mice and voles, have been implicated as major egg predators of Neotropical migrant passerines by field studies using soft plasticine eggs or the very small eggs of Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Nevertheless, the effort required to depredate these commonly used egg surrogates may be less than that required to depredate the larger, thicker-shelled eggs of most passerine species. To compare the depredation of these surrogates to that of the eggs of a mid-sized passerine by a ubiquitous small predator, we exposed dissimilar pairs of plasticine, Zebra Finch, and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) eggs to captive white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Plasticine eggs were marked by mice more than either kind of real egg, and Zebra Finch eggs were breached more often than House Sparrow eggs. We conclude that the use of either plasticine or Zebra Finch eggs may lead to overestimation of the ability or proclivity of small mammals to actually depredate the eggs of most passerines.


EvoDevo ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki Oda ◽  
Yasuko Akiyama-Oda

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeraj Khera ◽  
Arkaja Das ◽  
Saumya Srivasatava ◽  
Siddharth Jain

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document