Assessing Prey Selection of Barn Owls in Western Nebraska by Using Pellet Analysis and Small-mammal Trapping
Anisha Pokharel1*, Scott L. Gardner2, and John P. DeLong1
1University of Nebraska–Lincoln, School of Biological Sciences, 1101 T Street, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA. 2University of Nebraska State Museum and School of Biological Sciences, 645 N. 14th Street, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA. *Corresponding author.
Praire Naturalist, Volume 53 (2021):27–35
Abstract
Research on prey selection strategies is important for understanding the connections between predators and their prey communities. Studies on prey selection by Tyto alba (Scopoli) (Barn Owls) show contradictory results; some showed that Barn Owls are random samplers of small mammal communities, whereas others found that they take prey disproportionate to prey abundance. Here, we compared pellet analysis and small-mammal trapping data to assess patterns of prey selection by Barn Owls in western Nebraska. Microtus Schrank spp. (vole spp.) constituted 55.8% of the 1163 prey items. The proportions of several prey types in the diet were significantly different from the expected proportions based on trapping. Microtus spp. occurred more frequently in the diet, whereas Peromyscus Gloger spp. (deer mouse spp.) occurred less frequently in the diet than expected. This pattern may indicate Barn Owls actively select Microtus spp., possibly because they are twice as large as Peromyscus spp. and are, therefore, relatively more energetically rewarding. Alternatively, this pattern may suggest that Microtus spp. are more available to Barn Owls than are Peromyscus spp.
Download Full-text pdf
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
27
2021 PRAIRIE NATURALIST 53:27–35
Assessing Prey Selection of Barn Owls in Western Nebraska
by Using Pellet Analysis and Small-mammal Trapping
Anisha Pokharel1*, Scott L. Gardner2, and John P. DeLong1
Abstract - Research on prey selection strategies is important for understanding the connections
between predators and their prey communities. Studies on prey selection by Tyto alba (Scopoli)
(Barn Owls) show contradictory results; some showed that Barn Owls are random samplers of
small mammal communities, whereas others found that they take prey disproportionate to prey
abundance. Here, we compared pellet analysis and small-mammal trapping data to assess patterns
of prey selection by Barn Owls in western Nebraska. Microtus Schrank spp. (vole spp.) constituted
55.8% of the 1163 prey items. The proportions of several prey types in the diet were significantly
different from the expected proportions based on trapping. Microtus spp. occurred more frequently
in the diet, whereas Peromyscus Gloger spp. (deer mouse spp.) occurred less frequently in the diet
than expected. This pattern may indicate Barn Owls actively select Microtus spp., possibly because
they are twice as large as Peromyscus spp. and are, therefore, relatively more energetically rewarding.
Alternatively, this pattern may suggest that Microtus spp. are more available to Barn Owls than
are Peromyscus spp.
Introduction
Food-web structure and the patterns of interactions among predator and prey play a key
role in setting the stability of ecosystems and their ability to provide ecosystem services
(Beckerman et al. 1997, Estes et al. 2011, Fortin et al. 2005). A predator’s diet reflects its
connections to the community in which it lives, so documenting diets provides information
on food-web structure. Searching predators may make decisions about where to forage,
when to forage, and what to attack when they encounter potential prey (Stephens and
Krebs 1986). There is extensive literature assessing the degree to which a predator makes
decisions that can increase or maximize fitness, including decisions regarding how long to
hunt in a patch and what prey to include in the diet (Charnov 1976). Although uncertainty
remains about whether predators forage optimally (Sih and Christensen 2001), the degree
to which many predators take prey disproportionate to their availability in the environment
remains unclear. Such patterns may or may not reflect adaptive strategies but are important
in understanding the connections between predators and their prey communities.
Tyto alba (Scopoli) (Barn Owls) are widely studied for their prey selection because
of their global distribution, conservation status, susceptibility to rodenticides, and use as
a biocontrol agent for rodents (Kross et al. 2016, Moore et al. 1998). Barn Owls may be
unbiased samplers of the small mammal community upon which they principally prey, with
several studies showing that prey in Barn Owl diets are proportional to their abundance in
the prey community (Andrade et al. 2016, Bernard et al. 2010, Hawbecker 1945, Heisler et
al. 2016, Hucks et al. 2015, Rifai et al. 1998). Moreover, Avenant (2005) demonstrated that
Barn Owls are able to sample the small mammal community better than humans are able to
sample by trapping. In addition, some diet studies suggest that Barn Owls show little pref-
1University of Nebraska–Lincoln, School of Biological Sciences, 1101 T Street, Lincoln, NE 68588
USA. 2University of Nebraska State Museum and School of Biological Sciences, 645 N. 14th Street,
Lincoln, NE 68588 USA. *Corresponding author: anisha.pokharel7@gmail.com.
Manuscript Editor: Lawrence D. Igl
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
28
erence towards certain species and select a wide range of prey items that includes not only
small mammals (including bats) but also birds, amphibians, arthropods, and fish, depending
upon availability (Morton and Martin 1979).
In contrast, other studies suggest that Barn Owls take some prey species disproportionate
to their abundance in the prey community. Typically, Microtus Schrank spp. (vole
spp.) are the principal prey of Barn Owls in many temperate regions (Kopij 1998, Marti et
al. 2020, Myers et al. 2009). This pattern is consistent with the results of studies showing
that, given a choice, Barn Owls preferred Microtus spp. over other common rodents, such
as Peromyscus Gloger spp. (deer mouse spp.), at least in a captive setting (Derting and
Cranford 1989, Fast and Ambrose 1976). In the wild, Taylor (2009) found that Barn Owls
showed a strong preference for Microtus spp. over mice in Scotland. Similarly, Gubanyi
(1989) and Gubanyi et al. (1992) showed that Microtus spp. were taken as prey more often
than expected based on their abundance, and Peromyscus spp. were taken less often
than expected based on their abundance. Several additional studies showed evidence of
selective predation by Barn Owls on Microtus spp., irrespective of their habitat and prey
availability (Askew et al. 2007, Colvin 1985, Hindmarch and Elliott 2015, Marti 2010).
This higher prevalence of Microtus spp. in the Barn Owl diet compared with other small
rodents could result from them being more vulnerable or yielding higher energy intake per
unit handling time compared with alternative prey (DeLong et al. 2013, Fast and Ambrose
1976, Stephens and Krebs 1986). Barn Owls hunt mainly using acoustic cues, so it is possible
that Microtus spp. are louder and, therefore, more detectable than smaller alternative
prey (Derting and Cranford 1989, Taylor 2009). In addition, some studies suggest that
Barn Owl prey selection also may be influenced by body mass of the prey (Colvin 1985,
Marti 2010, Taylor 2009). For example, Yom-Tov and Wool (1997) showed that, although
Barn Owls might choose prey randomly, they prefer larger prey individuals over smaller
ones. Such size-based prey selection might explain the Barn Owls’ preference for Microtus
spp., which are twice the size of Peromyscus spp. However, Dickman et al. (1991)
and Trejo and Guthmann (2003) showed that Barn Owls have some preference towards
smaller prey size.
In this study, we evaluated prey selection in Barn Owls by using pellet analysis and determined
whether prey selection was proportional to the availability of prey. We focused on
a site in western Nebraska for which small-mammal community trapping data were available.
We tested whether Barn Owl diets reflected prey availability by species, indicating a
good sampler strategy, or whether diets were disproportionate to prey’s relative abundance,
suggesting either the existence of foraging strategies or differences in prey detectability.
We then tested whether the overall distribution of prey body mass in the diet differed from
the distribution of body mass in the prey community to determine whether Barn Owls could
simply be selecting larger or smaller prey rather than tar geting specific species.
Methods
Study Area
The study area was in western Nebraska (Keith County), in and surrounding the University
of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Cedar Point Biological Station (CPBS). Habitats around the station
include mixed-grass prairie and dry and irrigated agricultural fields. Bubo virginianus
(J.F. Gmelin) (Great Horned Owls), Megascops asio (Linnaeus) (Eastern Screech Owls),
Athene cunicularia (Molina) (Burrowing Owls), Asio otus (Linnaeus) (Long-eared Owls),
and Barn Owls occur in the area.
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
29
Pellet Sampling
We searched for Barn Owl nests and collected pellets from in and under the nests in May
to July of 2016–2018 from 5 Barn Owl territories at CPBS and along State Highway 92.
We autoclaved and cleaned the pellets, separating the skull and jaw bones. We identified
individual prey by the skulls, and we matched jaws to skulls whenever possible, counting
additional prey individuals for unmatched jaws (Marti 1973). We measured (in mm) skull
length (maximum length) and width (maximum distance between zygomatic arches), as
well as the length of both jaws, if available. We only included measurements from bones
that were intact and whose dimensions were not altered by digestion.
We estimated the mass of prey items identified from pellets through a set of regressions
linking bone measurements to wet mass of whole individuals. We estimated the mass (g) of
Microtus spp. with the equation , where BL is basilar length in mm (Pagels and Blem 1984).
From a subset of Microtus spp. skulls in our sample, we determined that basilar length was
90% of total skull length and, therefore, estimated basilar length as 0.9 × total skull length.
For the samples missing skull length, we applied regression equations based on our data,
using either or , where y = skull length (mm) and x = jaw length (mm) or zygomatic width
(mm), respectively. In the case of samples missing both skull and jaw length measurements
(because of skull or jaw damage), we used the mean mass of the specimens of the appropriate
species housed in the Division of Zoology in the University of Nebraska State Museum
(UNSM). We estimated the body mass (g) of Peromyscus spp. with the regression equation ,
where a = -2.972, b = 4.146, and ML is mandible length (mm), which is the jaw without incisors
or the mandibular condyle (Hamilton 1980). We corrected our jaw lengths to mandible
lengths with the correction factor of 0.728, which is the average proportion of mandible
length to jaw length in a random sample of 10 jaws from our pellets. In the case of samples
that lacked the jaw length, we applied the regression equation80, where x = zygomatic width
(mm) and y = jaw length (mm). For Reithrodontomys Giglioli spp. (harvest mouse spp.), we
estimated mass using the same mass/mandible length equation as used for Peromyscus spp.
but with a = -1.769 and b = 2.958 (Hamilton 1980).
We categorized some prey more broadly into the subfamily Neotominae if they could
not be classified as either Peromyscus spp. or Reithrodontomys spp., which was the case
when prey items were present only as jaws. We estimated the mass of these prey items using
the same mass/mandible length equation, with values of a and b averaged across both
Peromyscus spp. and Reithrodontomys spp.
We estimated the average mass of the other identified small mammal prey, Blarina Gray
spp. (American short-tailed shrew spp.), Sorex Linnaeus spp. (red-toothed shrew spp.), Geomys
Rafinesque spp. (eastern pocket gopher spp.), and Dipodomys ordii Woodhouse (Ord’s
Kangaroo Rat), as the average of locally collected specimen data provided by the UNSM.
Small-mammal Trapping
We compiled trapping data collected in mid-July to mid-August at CPBS (2012–2016) as
a part of a long-term field parasitology course at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Genoways
et al. 2008, Howell et al. 2016). During the course, we collected small mammals of
several different species from different locations in Keith, Arthur, Garden, and Grant counties
in western Nebraska: CPBS (41.21°N, 101.65°W; containing Great Plains grassland/
woodland and wetland habitats), Grama Grass (41.19°N, 101.65°W; a fallow mixed-grass
pasture), Double Tank (41.20°N, 101.64°W; mixed-grass habitat), Breen’s Flyway (41.18°N,
101.36°W; containing riparian-wetland habitat on the edge of the North Platte River), Ackley
Valley (41.33°N, 101.73°W; a short grass horse pasture), and Arapahoe Prairie (41.49°N,
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
30
101.86°W; short grass habitat) (Bailey 1982). We used ShermanTM live traps (H.B. Sherman
Traps, Inc., Tallahassee, FL), Museum Special snap traps (Woodstream Corp., Lititz, PA), or
pit-fall traps, baited with a mix of vanilla, peanut butter, and oatmeal, to collect specimens
(Gardner 1996, Gardner and Jiménez-Ruiz 2009). We checked traps twice daily, in the early
morning and late afternoon, and left traps open during the day to capture diurnal mammals,
such as Microtus spp. and Sciuridae spp. We prepared standard voucher specimens for all
trapped individuals, with weight and measurement data recorded at time of collection, and we
deposited specimens in the mammal collection of UNSM (Gardner 1996).
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were carried out using MATLAB 2019 (Mathworks, Natick,
MA). We identified several prey items only to the subfamily Neotominae, which includes
Peromyscus spp. and Reithrodontomys spp. To include these taxa in the analysis, we determined
the proportions of Neotominae that were identified as Peromyscus and Reithrodontomys
and allocated the more broadly categorized items to these 2 genera accordingly to
correct for undersampling. We ran chi-square tests to compare the proportion of prey types
in the diet to the relative abundance of prey types from the trapping sample at the level of
genus. We considered only small mammals in our analyses as we did not have a community
sample for other prey types or identifications for the avian prey items. We also compared
the distribution of body masses between the trapping and prey item samples by using a
2-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. For the test, we included only the species with masses
<200 g and excluded the larger species that were trapped but never found in the Barn Owl
diet (e.g., Vulpes Frisch spp., Lepus Linnaeus spp.).
Results
From all pellet material, we identified 1163 prey items, 11 of which were unidentified
birds. Of the 1152 mammalian prey items (Table 1), the majority (649 prey items or 56.3%)
were Microtus spp., including Microtus ochrogaster (Wagner) (Prairie Vole; 291 prey items)
and Microtus pennsylvanicus (Ord) (Meadow Vole; 336 prey items). The mammals in the diet
also included Peromyscus spp. (14.1%), Reithrodontomys montanus (Baird) (Plains Harvest
Mouse) and/or Reithrodontomys megalotis (Baird) (Western Harvest Mouse) (21.2%), Blarina
brevicauda (Say) (Northern Short-tailed Shrew) and/or Blarina hylophaga Elliot (Elliot’s
Short-tailed Shrew) (0.34%), Sorex spp. (3.1%), Dipodomys ordii (2.9%), and Geomys spp.
(2.0%). Unidentified Neotominae constituted 13.1% of the prey items. We also found evidence
of Faxonius virilis (Hagen) (Northern Crayfish) remains below 1 Barn Owl nest.
Mammal trapping yielded 592 individuals representing 14 species, including the 8 found
in the owl pellets plus 6 other species not found in owl pellets: Perognathus Wied-Neuwied
spp. (pocket mouse spp.), Chaetodipus hispidus (Baird) (Hispid Pocket Mouse), Onychomys
leucogaster (Wied-Neuwied) (Northern Grasshopper Mouse), Ictidomys J.A. Allen spp.
(lined ground squirrel spp.), Sylvilagus audubonii (Baird) (Desert Cottontail), and Zapus
hudsonius (Zimmermann) (Meadow Jumping Mouse) (Table 1). In contrast to the pellet
samples, the most abundant prey type in the trapping samples was Peromyscus spp.
Microtus spp. and Reithrodontomys spp. occurred significantly more in the diet than
expected from their frequencies in the trapping samples, whereas Peromyscus spp. and
Dipodomys spp. occurred less frequently in the diet than expected (Table 1). We also found
a significant difference between the distributions of the estimated mass of prey items in the
diet and the mass of individuals collected by trapping (k = 0.24, P ≤ 0.001; Fig. 1).
31
Table 1. Total number of individuals and percentage of small mammals in trapping samples and Barn Owl pellet samples
in western Nebraska. There were an additional 11 bird skulls of unidentified species found in the pellets. The pellet
sample numbers include unidentified Neotominae allocated to Peromyscus spp. (41 individuals) and Reithrodontomys
spp. (91 individuals) based on their proportions in the identified portion of the prey items. Differences in the frequency
of prey types between potential prey and actual prey were analyzed at the genus level through chi-squared (χ2) tests.
Prey Items Trapping
sample
% Pellet
sample
% χ2 P
Microtus Schrank spp. 53 8.95 649 56.33 370.02 <0.001
M. pennsylvanicus Ord 336
M. ochrogaster Wagner 291
Peromyscus Gloger spp. 283 47.80 163 14.14 227.39 <0.001
Dipodomys ordii Woodhouse 49 8.27 33 2.86 24.97 <0.001
Blarina Gray spp. 2 0.33 4 0.34 15.64 NA
Geomys Rafinesque spp. 20 3.37 23 1.99 2.96 0.08
Reithrodontomys Giglioli spp. 51 8.61 244 21.18 45.13 <0.001
Sorex Linnaeus spp. 12 2.02 36 3.12 1.85 0.17
Perognathus Wied-Neuwied spp. 37 6.25 – –
Chaetodipus hispidus Baird 18 3.04 – –
Onychomys leucogaster Wied-Neuwied 31 5.23 – –
Ictidomys J. A. Allen spp. 5 0.84 – –
Sylvilagus audubonii Baird 7 1.18 – –
Zapus hudsonius Zimmermann 24 4.05 – –
Total 592 1152
Figure 1. Mass distribution of prey items using trapping data versus estimated mass distribution of
prey items in the diet of Barn Owls in western Nebraska. The diet distribution is significantly shifted
towards the right of the trapping sample (k = 0.25, P < 0.001).
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
32
Discussion
Barn Owl diets have been extensively studied throughout the world (Bernard et al. 2010,
Glue 1972, Heisler et al. 2016, Marti 1973), but it remains unclear if Barn Owls generally
take prey types in proportion to their abundance in the prey community. Gubanyi (1989) and
Gubanyi et al. (1992) recorded ~17 mammal species in the diets of Barn Owls in western
Nebraska, with most of the prey being Microtus spp., Reithrodontomys spp., and Peromyscus
spp. In addition, Bonner and Geluso (2010) recorded 12 species of mammals in the
diets of Barn Owls at Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge in northwestern Nebraska,
with most of the diets composed of Microtus spp., Dipodomys spp., and Peromyscus spp.
Huebschman et al. (2000) found 11 mammal species in Barn Owl pellets collected from 24
counties in Nebraska from 1980–1998, and they found that Microtus spp. and Peromyscus
spp. constituted the principle prey items. Our data on diet for western Nebraska indicate a
similar array of prey types, with Microtus spp. constituting most of the diet.
In our study, the proportions of some species differed significantly between the pellet
and trapping samples. For example, Microtus spp. and Reithrodontomys spp. occurred more
frequently in the diet than expected from trapping results, whereas Peromyscus spp. and
Dipodomys spp. occurred less frequently in the diet than expected, which is a pattern similar
to some previous findings (Gubanyi 1989, Gubanyi et al. 1992, Pearson and Pearson 1947).
Although covering a wide range of habitats and using multiple trapping techniques, the trapping
data may not exactly represent the foraging habitats used by Barn Owls in our study
area or may not be a perfectly random sample of the prey base. A mismatch between pellets
and trapping also could arise through incomplete spatial overlap of owl hunting and trapping
areas, differences in years between the samples, and differences in seasonal timing of pellet
and trapping collection. However, a large portion (45%) of our pellet data was collected in
2016, a year in which trapping data was also collected, and both trapping data and pellets
came from a broadly overlapping region during the breeding season for the owls, indicating
reasonable support for the comparison. Furthermore, the dramatic differences between prey
and trapping frequencies for Microtus spp. (56.3% in diet versus 9.0% in traps) and Peromyscus
spp. (14.1% in diet versus 47.8% in traps) suggest that, even given some potential error in
sampling, Barn Owls showed non-random consumption of potential mammalian prey.
Marti (1973) showed that Barn Owls prefer larger prey species over smaller ones,
whereas Dickman et al. (1991) found the opposite. Our genus-level differences between
prey items and potential prey also reflect that the body mass distribution of the diet is significantly
shifted to the right of the body mass distribution of trapped mammals, indicating
selection of larger prey (Fig. 1). This result reflects that the most abundant prey, Microtus
spp., are about twice the size of Peromyscus spp. This bias toward relatively larger prey
species in the diet might reflect the possibility that Microtus spp. are a more energetically
profitable option than the smaller Peromyscus spp., suggesting that Barn Owls in western
Nebraska forage in a way that is consistent with an optimal foraging strategy (DeLong et al.
2013, Derting and Cranford 1989). Alternatively, Barn Owls might be detecting Microtus
spp. more often as they might be louder or more vulnerable and hence more available to
Barn Owls than are Peromyscus spp. Individuals of Peromyscus spp. and Microtus spp. also
live in different habitats, so Microtus spp. may be more detectable or their locations may be
more predictable given a potentially acoustics-focused hunting method by the owls.
Raptor diets are likely influenced by prey abundance, seasonal vegetation changes,
habitat modification, prey behavior, and prey reproductive patterns (Rosenblatt et al. 2015,
Taylor 2009), all of which should be considered when trying to understand prey selection.
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
33
Overall, our results support the idea that Barn Owls select a wide range of prey items but
are biased toward certain species (here, Microtus spp.) despite the availability of other prey
types. We suggest that, given the equivocal evidence for Barn Owls either being random
samplers of the prey community or displaying selective foraging behaviors, future work
should consider the conditions under which some degree of prey selectivity would arise for
Barn Owls, or for raptors more generally.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank T. Labedz from the State Museum of Nebraska for providing the data for
mass estimation of small mammals. We also thank students at Cedar Point Biological Station for assistance
with pellet collection and small-mammal trapping.
Literature Cited
Andrade, A., J.F.S. de Menezes, and A. Monjeau. 2016. Are owl pellets good estimators of prey abundance?
Journal of King Saud University–Science 28:239–244.
Askew, N.P., J.B. Searle, and N.P. Moore. 2007. Prey selection in a Barn Owl Tyto alba. Bird Study
54:130–132.
Avenant, N.L. 2005. Barn Owl pellets: A useful tool for monitoring small mammal communities.
Belgian Journal of Zoology 135:39–43.
Bailey, R.G. 1982. Classification systems for habitat and ecosystems. Pp. 16–26, In W.T. Mason Jr.
and S. Iker (Eds.). Research on Fish and Wildlife Habitat. EPA 600/8-82-022. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. 248 pp.
Beckerman, A.P., M. Uriarte, and O.J. Schmitz. 1997. Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated
trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
94:10735–10738.
Bernard, N., D. Michelat, F. Raoul, J.P. Quéré, P. Delattre, and P. Giraudoux. 2010. Dietary response
of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) to large variations in populations of Common Voles (Microtus arvalis)
and European Water Voles (Arvicola terrestris). Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:416–426.
Bonner S.L., and K. Geluso. 2010. Examination of owl pellets for Northern Pocket Gophers at Crescent
Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Nebraska. The Prairie Naturalist 42:138–141.
Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging: Attack strategy of a mantid. American Naturalist 110:141–151.
Colvin, B.A. 1985. Common Barn-Owl population decline in Ohio and the relationship to agricultural
trends. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:224–235.
DeLong, J.P., N.S. Cox, S.W. Cox, Z.M. Hurst, and J.P. Smith. 2013. DNA sequencing reveals patterns
of prey selection in migrating Sharp-shinned Hawks. The Condor 115:40–46.
Derting, T.L., and J.A. Cranford. 1989. Physical and behavioral correlates of prey vulnerability to
Barn Owl (Tyto alba) predation. American Midland Naturalist 121:11–20.
Dickman, C.R., M. Predavec, and A.J. Lynam. 1991. Differential predation of size and sex classes of
mice by the Barn Owl, Tyto alba. Oikos 62:67–76.
Estes, J.A., J. Terborgh, J.S. Brashares, M.E. Power, J. Berger, W.J. Bond, S.R. Carpenter, T.E. Essington,
R.D. Holt, J.B.C. Jackson, R.J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, R.T. Paine, E.K. Pikitch,
W.J. Ripple, S.A. Sandin, M. Scheffer, T.W. Schoener, J.B. Shurin, A.R.E. Sinclair, M.E. Soulé,
R. Virtanen, and D.A. Wardle. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333:301–306.
Fast, S.J., and H.W. Ambrose. 1976. Prey preference and hunting habitat selection in the Barn Owl.
American Midland Naturalist 96:503–507.
Fortin, D., H.L. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, D.W. Smith, T. Duchesne, and J.S. Mao. 2005. Wolves influence
Elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology
86:1320–1330.
Gardner, S.L. 1996. Field parasitology techniques for use with mammals. Pp. 291–298, In D.E. Wilson,
F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M.S. Foster (Eds.). Measuring and Monitoring Biological
Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian, Washington, DC, USA. 409 pp.
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
34
Gardner, S.L., and F.A. Jiménez-Ruiz. 2009. Methods for the study of bats endoparasites. Pp. 795–
805, In T.H. Kunz and S. Parsons (Eds.). Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. 901 pp.
Genoways, H.H., J.D. Hoffman, P.W. Freeman, K. Geluso, R.A. Benedict and J.J. Huebschman. 2008.
Mammals of Nebraska: Checklist, key, and bibliography. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska
State Museum 23:1–92.
Glue, D.E. 1972. Bird prey taken by British owls. Bird Study 19:91–96.
Gubanyi, J.A. 1989. Habitat use and diet analysis of breeding Common Barn-Owls in western Nebraska.
M.Sc. Thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA. 92 pp.
Gubanyi, J.A., R.M. Case, and G. Wingfield. 1992. Diet and nesting success of Barn Owls breeding
in western Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist 127:224–232.
Hamilton, K.L. 1980. A technique for estimating Barn Owl prey biomass. Raptor Research 14:52–55.
Hawbecker, A.C. 1945. Food habits of the Barn Owl. The Condor 47:161–166.
Heisler, L.M., C.M. Somers, and R G. Poulin. 2016. Owl pellets: A more effective alternative to conventional
trapping for broad-scale studies of small mammal communities. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution 7:96–103.
Hindmarch, S., and J.E. Elliott. 2015. A specialist in the city: The diet of Barn Owls along a rural to
urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems 18:477–488.
Howell, L., K. Jelden, E. Rácz, S.L. Garner, and D. Gettinger. 2016. Arthropods infesting small mammals
(Insectivora and Rodentia) near Cedar Point Biological Station in southwestern Nebraska.
Insecta Mundi 0478:1–16.
Hucks, K.D., C.J. Butler, K.J. Locey, L.H. Locey, and P.W. Wilson. 2015. Prey composition of Barn
Owl pellets collected in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 95:1–8.
Huebschman, J.J., P.W. Freeman, H.H. Genoways, and J.A. Gubanyi. 2000. Observations on small
mammals recovered from owl pellets from Nebraska. The Prairie Naturalist 32:209–215.
Kopij, G. 1998. Stomach contents, biometrics and tail moult of Lesser Kestrels Falco naumanni overwintering
in the Bloemfontein area, South Africa. Journal of African Raptor Biology 13:10–14.
Kross, S.M., R.P. Bourbour, and B.L. Martinico. 2016. Agricultural land use, Barn Owl diet, and vertebrate
pest control implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 223:167–174.
Marti, C.D. 1973. Food consumption and pellet formation rates in four owl species. Wilson Bulletin
85:178–181.
Marti, C.D. 2010. Dietary trends of Barn Owls in an agricultural ecosystem in northern Utah. Wilson
Journal of Ornithology 122:60–67.
Marti, C.D., A.F. Poole, L.R. Bevier, M.D. Bruce, D.A. Christie, G.M. Kirwan, and J.S. Marks. 2020.
Barn Owl (Tyto alba), version 1.0. In S.M. Billerman (Ed.). Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available online at https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/
brnowl/introduction. Accessed 3 February 2020.
Moore, T., D. Van Vuren, and C. Ingels. 1998. Are Barn Owls a biological control for gophers? Evaluating
effectiveness in vineyards and orchards. Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference
18:394–396.
Morton, S.R., and A.A. Martin. 1979. Feeding ecology of the Barn Owl, Tyto alba, in arid southern
Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 6:191–204.
Myers, A.C., C.B. Goguen, and D.C. Rabbers. 2009. Seasonal variation in the diet of the Barn Owl in
northwestern Nevada. Western Birds 40:292–296.
Pagels, J.F., and C.R. Blem. 1984. Prediction of body weights of small mammals from skull measurements.
Acta Theriologica 29:367–381.
Pearson, O.P., and A.K. Pearson. 1947. Owl predation in Pennsylvania, with notes on the small mammals
of Delaware County. Journal of Mammalogy 28:137–147.
Rifai, L.B., W.N. Al-Melhim, and Z.S. Amr. 1998. On the diet of the Barn Owl, Tyto alba, in northern
Jordan. Zoology in the Middle East 16:31–34.
Rosenblatt, A.E., J.C. Nifong, M.R. Heithaus, F.J. Mazzotti, M.S. Cherkiss, B.M. Jeffery, R.M. Elsey,
R.A. Decker, B.R. Silliman, L.J. Guillette Jr., R.H. Lowers, and J.C. Larson. 2015. Factors affecting
individual foraging specialization and temporal diet stability across the range of a large
“generalist” apex predator. Oecologia 178:5–16.
Prairie Naturalist
A. Pokharel, S.L. Gardner, and J.P. DeLong
2021 53:27–35
35
Sih, A., and B. Christensen. 2001. Optimal diet theory: When does it work, and when and why does
it fail? Animal Behaviour 61:379–390.
Stephens, D.W., and J.R. Krebs. 1986. Foraging Theory. Monographs in Behavior and Ecology. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. 239 pp.
Taylor, I.R. 2009. How owls select their prey: A study of Barn Owls Tyto alba and their small mammal
prey. Ardea 97:635–644.
Trejo, A., and N. Guthmann. 2003. Owl selection on size and sex classes of rodents: Activity and
microhabitat use of prey. Journal of Mammalogy 84:652–658.
Yom-Tov, Y., and D. Wool. 1997. Do the contents of Barn Owl pellets accurately represent the proportion
of prey species in the field? The Condor 99:972–976.