Hubbry Logo
Territory (animal)Territory (animal)Main
Open search
Territory (animal)
Community hub
Territory (animal)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Territory (animal)
Territory (animal)
Territory (animal)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Kenya_August_2010_444_(4939520158).jpg
Use Me (393539335).jpg
Jackals mark their territories with urine[1]

In ethology, territory is the sociographical area that an animal consistently defends against conspecific competition (or, occasionally, against animals of other species) using agonistic behaviors or (less commonly) real physical aggression. Animals that actively defend territories in this way are referred to as being territorial or displaying territorialism.

Territoriality is only shown by a minority of species. More commonly, an individual or a group of animals occupies an area that it habitually uses but does not necessarily defend; this is called its home range. The home ranges of different groups of animals often overlap, and in these overlap areas the groups tend to avoid each other rather than seeking to confront and expel each other. Within the home range there may be a core area that no other individual group uses, but, again, this is as a result of avoidance.

Function

[edit]

The ultimate function of animals inhabiting and defending a territory is to increase the individual fitness or inclusive fitness of the animals expressing the behaviour. Fitness in this biological sense relates to the ability of an animal to survive and raise young. The proximate functions of territory defense vary. For some animals, the reason for such protective behaviour is to acquire and protect food sources, nesting sites, mating areas, or to attract a mate.

Types and size

[edit]

Among birds, territories have been classified as six types.[2]

  • Type A: An 'all-purpose territory' in which all activities occur, e.g. courtship, mating, nesting and foraging
  • Type B: A mating and nesting territory, not including most of the area used for foraging.
  • Type C: A nesting territory which includes the nest plus a small area around it. Common in colonial waterbirds.
  • Type D: A pairing and mating territory. The type of territory defended by males in lekking species.
  • Type E: Roosting territory.
  • Type F: Winter territory which typically includes foraging areas and roost sites. May be equivalent (in terms of location) to the Type A territory, or for a migratory species, may be on the wintering grounds.

Reports of territory size can be confused by a lack of distinction between home range and the defended territory. The size and shape of a territory can vary according to its purpose, season, the amount and quality of resources it contains, or the geography. The size is usually a compromise of resource needs, defense costs, predation pressure and reproductive needs.

Some species of squirrels may claim as much as 10 hectares (25 acres) of territory.[3] For European badgers, a home range may be as small as 30 hectares (74 acres) in a good rural habitat, but as large as 300 hectares (740 acres) in a poor habitat. On average, a territory may be approximately 50 hectares (120 acres), with main setts normally at least 500 metres (1,600 ft) apart. In urban areas, territories can be as small as 5 hectares (12 acres), if they can obtain enough food from bird tables, food waste or artificial feeding in suburban gardens.[4] Spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) have highly variable territory sizes, ranging from less than 4,000 hectares (9,900 acres) in the Ngorongoro Crater to over 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) in the Kalahari.[5]

In birds, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) have territories of 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres), least flycatchers' (Empidonax minimus) territories are about 600 square metres (6,500 sq ft) and gulls have territories of only a few square centimetres in the immediate vicinity of the nest.[6]

Territories can be linear. Sanderlings (Calidris alba) forage on beaches and sandflats. When on beaches, they feed either in flocks or individual territories of 10 to 120 metres of shoreline.[7]

The time to develop territories varies between animals. The marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) is a lekking reptile. Males start to establish small display territories two months ahead of the mating season.[8]

Retaining a territory

[edit]
Video of a tigress scent-marking her territory

Rather than retaining a territory simply by fighting, for some animals this can be a 3-stage process. Many animals create "sign-posts" to advertise their territory. Sometimes these sign-posts are on the boundary thereby demarcating the territory, or, may be scattered throughout the territory. These communicate to other animals that the territory is occupied and may also communicate additional information such as the sex, reproductive status or dominance status of the territory-holder. Sign-posts may communicate information by olfactory, auditory, or visual means, or a combination of these. If an intruder progresses further into the territory beyond the sign-posts and encounters the territory-holder, both animals may begin ritualized aggression toward each other. This is a series of stylised postures, vocalisations, displays, etc. which function to solve the territory dispute without actual fighting as this could injure either or both animals. Ritualized aggression often ends by one of the animals fleeing (generally the intruder). If this does not happen, the territory may be defended by actual fighting, although this is generally a last resort.

Advertising the territory

[edit]

Scent marking

[edit]
"Urine spraying" redirects here. For spraying of urine as an animal repellent, see Animal repellent.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Scent marking.
Felids rub their heads on vegetation
Tigers and lions spray urine on scent posts

Scent marking, also known as territorial marking or spraying when this involves urination, is a behaviour used by animals to identify their territory.[10][11][12] Most commonly, this is accomplished by depositing strong-smelling substances contained in the urine, faeces, or, from specialised scent glands located on various areas of the body. Often, the scent contains pheromones or carrier proteins such as the major urinary proteins to stabilize the odours and maintain them for longer.[13][14] The animal sniffing the scent frequently displays a flehmen response to assist in detecting the mark. Scent marking is often performed by scent rubbing in many mammals.[15] In many mammal species, scent marking is more frequent during the breeding season.[16]

Bears[17] and felids such as leopards and jaguars scent-mark by urinating on[18][19][20][21] or rubbing against vegetation. Prosimians and New World monkeys also use scent marking, including urine washing (self-anointing the body with urine), to communicate.[22][23][24] Many ungulates, for example the blue wildebeest, use scent marking from two glands, the preorbital gland and a scent gland in the hoof.[citation needed]

Territorial scent marking may involve behaviours specific to this activity. When a wolf marks its territory, it lifts a hind leg and urinates on a scent post (usually an elevated position like a tree, rock, or bush).[25] This raised leg urination is different from normal urination, which is done while squatting.[26] This posture is exclusive to alpha wolves of either sex, although the alpha male does this most often. The alpha female usually urinates on a scent post that her breeding partner has just urinated on, although during the mating season, the female may first urinate on the ground. All other females in the pack, and also young wolves and low-ranking male wolves, urinate while squatting.[27][unreliable source?] Similar urination postures are used by coyotes and golden jackals.[28]

Males and female ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) scent-mark both vertical and horizontal surfaces at the overlaps in their home ranges using their anogenital scent glands. To do this, they perform a handstand to mark vertical surfaces, grasping the highest point with their feet while applying the scent.[29]

In the Eastern carpenter bee, Xylocopa virginica, both sexes have glands that evolved for marking the nest. Males, although they have the gland, are unable to produce the marking substance. Females secrete it near the nest site entrance to establish their territory.[30]

Wombats use feces to mark their territory. They have evolved specialized intestinal anatomy to produce cubical feces to ensure the feces do not roll away.[31]

Visual

[edit]
Ring-tailed lemurs hold their distinctive tails high in the air during territorial scent marking. They also engage in "stink fights" with intruding males.
The antebrachial scent gland and spur on the forearm of a male ring-tailed lemur

Visual sign-posts may be a short-term or long-term mode of advertising a territory. Short-term communication includes the colouration or behaviour of the animal, which can only be communicated when the resident is present. Other animals may use more long-term visual signals such as faecal deposits, or marks on the vegetation or ground. Visual marking of territory is often combined with other modes of animal communication.

Some animals have prominent "badges" or visual displays to advertise their territory, often in combination with scent marking or auditory signals. Male European robins are noted for their highly aggressive territorial behaviour. They attack other males that stray into their territories, and have been observed attacking other small birds without apparent provocation. Such attacks sometimes lead to fatalities, accounting for up to 10% of adult robin deaths in some areas.[32] The red breast of the bird (i.e. badge) is highly visible when it sings (vocal marking) at the boundary of its territory. The ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) advertises its territory with urine scent marks. When it is urinating for marking purposes, it holds its extremely distinctive tail high in the air adding a visual component to the advertisement; when it is urinating for eliminative purposes, its tail is only slightly raised.[33]

Rhinoceros have poor vision but may use visual marking. Dominant white rhino bulls mark their territory with faeces and urine (olfactory marking).[34] The dung is laid in well defined piles. There may be 20 to 30 of these piles to alert passing rhinoceroses that it is occupied territory. Other males may deposit dung over the piles of another and subsequently the sign-post grows larger and larger. Such a dung heap can become up to five metres wide and one metre high.[35] After defecating, greater one-horned rhinos scratch their hind feet in the dung. By continuing to walk, they "transport" their own smell around the paths, thus establishing a scent-marked trail. Another method of visually marking their territory is wiping their horns on bushes or the ground and scraping with the feet, although this is likely combined with the smell of the marking animal. The territorial male scrape-marks every 30 m (98 ft) or so around its territory boundary.

After leaving a urination mark, some animals scrape or dig the ground nearby, thereby leaving a visual advertisement of the territory. This includes domestic dogs.

Several species scratch or chew trees leaving a visual mark of their territory. This is sometimes combined with rubbing on the tree which may leave tufts of fur. These include the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)[36] and the American black bear (Ursus americanus).[37][38] Many animals have scent glands in their paws or deposit fur during tree-marking, so tree-marking may be a combination of both visual and olfactory advertising of the territory. The male ring-tailed lemur has a specialised adaptation to assist in leaving visual/olfactory territorial marks. On their inner forearm (antebrachial) is a scent gland which is covered by a spur. In a behaviour called "spur marking", they grasp the substrate, usually a small sapling, and drag the spur over it, cutting into the wood and spreading the gland's secretions. When on the ground, ring-tailed lemurs preferentially mark small saplings and when high in the trees, they usually mark small vertical branches.[29]

European wildcats (Felis silvestris) deposit their faecal marks on plants with high visual conspicuousness that enhances the visual effectiveness of the signal.[39]

Auditory

[edit]

Many animals use vocalisations to advertise their territory. These are short-term signals transmitted only when the animal is present, but can travel long distances and over varied habitats. Examples of animals which use auditory signals include birds, frogs and canids.

Wolves howling
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Wolves advertise their territories to other packs through a combination of scent marking and howling. Under certain conditions, wolf howls can be heard over areas of up to 130 km2 (50 sq mi).[40] When howling together, wolves harmonize rather than chorus on the same note, thus creating the illusion of there being more wolves than there actually are.[41] Wolves from different geographic locations may howl in different fashions: the howls of European wolves are much more protracted and melodious than those of North American wolves, whose howls are louder and have a stronger emphasis on the first syllable.[42]

Ritualized aggression

[edit]
Main article: Ritualized aggression
Two domestic cats posturing during ritualized aggression over a territory

Animals use a range of behaviours to intimidate intruders and defend their territories, but without engaging in fights which are expensive in terms of energy and the risk of injury. This is ritualized aggression. Such defense frequently involves a graded series of behaviours or displays that include threatening gestures (such as vocalizations, spreading of wings or gill covers, lifting and presentation of claws, head bobbing, tail and body beating) and finally, direct attack.

Defense

[edit]

Territories may be held by an individual, a mated or unmated pair, or a group. Territoriality is not always a fixed behavioural characteristic of a species. For example, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) either establish stable home ranges within particular areas or are itinerant with no fixed abode.[43] Territories may vary with time (season). For example, European robins defend territories as pairs during the breeding season but as individuals during the winter. Resource availability may cause changes in territoriality. For example, some nectarivores defend territories only during the mornings when plants are richest in nectar. In species that do not form pair bonds, male and female territories are often independent, i.e. males defend territories only against other males and females only against other females. In this case, if the species is polygynous, one male territory probably contains several female territories, while in some polyandrous species such as the northern jacana, this situation is reversed.

Strategies

[edit]

Animals may use several strategies to defend their territories.

The first game theory model of fighting is known as the hawk-dove game. This model pits a hawk strategy (always try to injure your opponent and only withdraw from the contest if an injury is received) against a dove strategy (always use a non-injurious display if the rival is another dove and always withdraw if the rival is a hawk).

Another strategy used in territory defence is the war of attrition. In this model of aggression, two contestants compete for a resource by persisting while constantly accumulating costs over the time that the contest lasts. Strategically, the game is an auction in which the prize goes to the player with the highest bid, and each player pays the loser's low bid.

Some animals use a strategy termed the dear enemy effect in which two neighbouring territorial animals become less aggressive toward one another once territorial borders are well-established and they are familiar to each other, but aggression toward unfamiliar animals remains unaffected.[44] The converse of this is the nasty neighbour effect in which a territory-holder shows heightened aggression toward neighbouring territory-holders but unaffected aggression to unfamiliar animals or distant territory-holders. These contrasting strategies depend on which intruder (familiar or unfamiliar) poses the greatest threat to the resident territory-holder.[45]

In territory defence by groups of animals, reciprocal altruism can operate whereby the cost to the benefactor in helping defend the territory is less than the gains to the beneficiary.

Resources defended

[edit]

An animal chooses its territory by deciding what part of its home range it will defend. In selecting a territory, the size and quality play crucial roles in determining an animal's habitat. Territory size generally tends to be no larger than the organism requires to survive, because defending a larger territory incurs greater energy, time and risk of injury costs. For some animals, the territory size is not the most important aspect of territoriality, but rather the quality of the defended territory.

Behavioural ecologists have argued that food distribution determines whether a species is territorial or not, however, this may be too narrow a perspective. Several other type of resource may be defended including partners, potential mates, offspring, nests or lairs, display areas or leks. Territoriality emerges where there is a focused resource that provides enough for the individual or group, within a boundary that is small enough to be defended without the expenditure of excessive effort. Territoriality is often most strong towards conspecifics, as shown in the case of redlip blenny.[46] This is because the conspecifics share exactly the same set of resources.

Several types of resource in a territory may be defended.

A western marsh harrier is mobbed by a northern lapwing. The marsh harrier, a male, had been quartering the ground in which lapwing and redshank were nesting.

Food: Large solitary (or paired) carnivores, such as bears and the bigger raptors require an extensive protected area to guarantee their food supply. This territoriality only breaks down when there is a glut of food, for example when grizzly bears are attracted to migrating salmon.

Food related territoriality is least likely with insectivorous birds, where the food supply is plentiful but unpredictably distributed. Swifts rarely defend an area larger than the nest. Conversely, other insectivorous birds that occupy more constrained territories, such as the ground-nesting blacksmith lapwing may be very territorial, especially in the breeding season during which they not only threaten or attack many kinds of intruders, but have stereotyped display behaviour to deter conspecifics sharing neighbouring nesting spots.

The owl limpet (Lottia gigantea) is a large (up to 8 cm in length) limpet. It lives in association with an approximately 1,000 cm^2 area of algal film in which its grazing marks can be seen, whereas the remainder of the rock surface is usually free of any visible film. These areas of algal film represent the territories of the Lottia; within them the animals do all their grazing. They keep their territories free of other organisms by shoving off any intruders: other Lottia, grazing limpets of the genus Acmaea, predatory snails, and sessile organisms such as anemones and barnacles.[47]

Nests and offspring: Many birds, particularly seabirds, nest in dense communities but are nonetheless territorial in defending their nesting site to within the distance they can reach while brooding. This is necessary to prevent attacks on their own chicks or nesting material from neighbours. Commonly the resulting superimposition of the short-range repulsion onto the long-range attraction characteristically leads to the well-known roughly hexagonal spacing of nests. One gets a similar hexagonal spacing resulting from the territorial behaviour of gardening limpets such as species of Scutellastra.[48] They vigorously defend their gardens of particular species of algae, that extend for perhaps 1–2 cm around the periphery of their shells.

The desert grass spider, Agelenopsis aperta, often engages in fights over its territory and the most combative spiders have the largest territories.[49]

Some species of penguin defend their nests from intruders trying to steal the pebbles from which the nest is constructed.[6]

Mating opportunities: The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) is group living with one single breeding male and up to 4 communally breeding females per group. Groups typically contain several philopatric adult sons (and daughters) that are believed not to breed in their natal group and all group members participate in territorial defence. Males defend their territory using a nasty neighbour strategy. Group-living male breeders are nearly five times more aggressive towards their neighbours than towards strangers, leading to the prediction that neighbours are the most important competitors for paternity. Using a molecular parentage analysis it has been shown that 28% of offspring are sired by neighbouring males and only 7% by strangers.[50] In certain species of butterflies, such as the Australian painted lady butterfly and the speckled wood butterfly, the male defends territories that receptive females are likely to fly through such as sunny hilltops and sunspots on a forest's floor.[51][52]

Territory defence in male variegated pupfish (Cyprinodon variegatus) is dependent on the presence of females. Reduced aggression consistent with the dear enemy effect occurs between conspecific neighbours in the absence of females, but the presence of a female in a male's territory instigates comparably greater aggression between the neighbours.[53]

In the Skylark (Alauda arvensis), playbacks of neighbour and stranger songs at three periods of the breeding season show that neighbours are dear enemies in the middle of the season, when territories are stable, but not at the beginning of the breeding season, during settlement and pair formation, nor at the end, when bird density increases due to the presence of young birds becoming independent. Thus, this dear enemy territoriality relationship is not a fixed pattern but a flexible one likely to evolve with social and ecological circumstances.[54]

Some species of bees also exhibit territoriality to defend mating sites. For example, in Euglossa imperialis, a non-social bee species, males have been observed to occasionally form aggregations of fragrance-rich territories, considered to be leks. These leks serve only a facultative purpose for this species, in which the more fragrance-rich sites there are, the greater the number of habitable territories. Since these territories are aggregated, females have a large selection of males with whom to potentially mate within the aggregation, giving females the power of mate choice.[55] Similar behaviour is also observed in the Eulaema meriana orchid bee. Males in this species of bee show alternative behaviours of territoriality and transiency. Transient male bees did not defend territories, but instead flew from one territory to the other. They also did not engage in physical contact with the territorial males. On the other hand, territorial males patrolled an area around a tree and used the same territory for up to 49 days. It also appeared that they gave up territories to new males without violence. Males defend territories solely for mating, and no other resources such as fragrances, nests, nest construction materials, nectar, or pollen are found at these territories.[56]

Single resource territories

[edit]

Although most territories contain multiple (potential) resources, some territories are defended for only one purpose. European blackbirds may defend feeding territories that are distant from their nest sites, and in some species that form leks, for example in the Uganda kob (an antelope) and the marine iguana, males defend the lek site which is used only for mating.

Polyterritoriality

[edit]

Many species demonstrate polyterritoriality, referring to the act of claiming or defending more than one territory. In the European pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), researchers assert that males exhibit polyterritoriality to deceive females of the species into entering into polygynous relationships. This hypothesis, named the deception hypothesis, claims that males have territories at distances sufficiently great that females are unable to discern already-mated males. The observation that males travelled long distances, ranging from 200m to 3.5 km, to find a second mate supports this argument.[57] The debate about polyterritoriality in this species may initiate research about the evolution and reasons for polyterritoriality in other unrelated species.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Territory (animal)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , territoriality refers to the exclusive use and defense of a fixed space by an animal or group against conspecifics, primarily to secure access to critical resources such as , , , and mates. This behavior manifests through a suite of actions, including advertisement via signals and direct confrontation, and is a foundational concept in that influences , , and survival across diverse taxa. Territoriality is widespread in the animal kingdom, occurring in many bird species, numerous mammals like lions and wolves, fish such as salmon, reptiles including lizards, and even insects like bees. Territories vary in size and purpose; for instance, they may be all-purpose (encompassing multiple needs), breeding-specific (focused on reproduction), or feeding-only (centered on foraging sites), depending on environmental pressures and species-specific adaptations. The establishment of territories often begins with exploration and claiming, followed by ongoing maintenance to prevent encroachment, which can reduce intraspecific conflict once boundaries are recognized by neighbors. Mechanisms of territorial defense include non-aggressive signaling—such as vocalizations in birds, scent marking in mammals, or visual displays in —to warn potential intruders, escalating to physical only when necessary. These strategies aim to minimize energy expenditure while maximizing resource control, and their effectiveness is modulated by factors like and resource distribution. In cooperative species, such as meerkats, group territoriality enhances collective defense, highlighting how this behavior can structure social hierarchies and . The evolutionary basis of territoriality is illuminated by economic theories, notably J.L. Brown's 1964 model of "economic defendability," which argues that invest in defense only when the value of exclusive resource access exceeds the costs of vigilance, advertisement, and . This framework explains variations in territorial systems, from solitary defense in songbirds to communal in , and underscores territoriality's role in optimizing fitness amid . Contemporary research extends these ideas to implications for conservation, revealing how territorial affects reintroduction success and spread in .

Definition and Function

Definition

In , an animal territory is defined as a fixed sociographical area that an or group consistently defends against conspecifics—individuals of the same —to secure exclusive access to critical resources such as , mates, or nesting sites. This defense typically involves agonistic behaviors, ranging from displays to physical confrontations, ensuring that intruders are repelled to maintain the owner's monopoly over the space. The concept of territory was first systematically articulated by British ornithologist Henry Eliot Howard in his 1920 book Territory in Bird Life, where he described it as a specific domain established and guarded by breeding males, primarily observed in avian species to facilitate nesting and pair formation. Although initially focused on birds, the term has since been extended to numerous taxa, including mammals, reptiles, , and , as a fundamental aspect of . Key components of a territory include spatial exclusivity, where the area is monopolized to exclude others; defense investment, encompassing the time, energy, and risk expended in repelling rivals; and behavioral boundaries, often marked through scent, vocalizations, or physical structures to advertise ownership and deter intrusions without constant confrontation. A territory differs from a home range, which is the broader area traversed by an animal for daily activities like and resting without active defense or exclusive claim; a territory represents a defended subset within or overlapping the home range, where exclusion of conspecifics is enforced.

Evolutionary Role

Territoriality in animals has evolved primarily to secure critical such as supplies, opportunities, and nesting sites, which directly contribute to improved rates and reproductive output. Under conditions of limitation and high , individuals that successfully monopolize a defensible area gain exclusive access to these essentials, reducing interference from conspecifics and enhancing overall fitness. This adaptive strategy is particularly evident in scenarios of , where the potential gains from exclusive use outweigh the energetic demands of establishment and upkeep. The fitness advantages of territoriality manifest through diminished and elevated success, as territory holders can allocate more energy to rather than amid rivals. models, including the ideal free distribution framework developed by Fretwell and Lucas, demonstrate how animals optimally distribute across patches to equalize resource intake, with territorial behavior often favoring dominant individuals in resource-rich areas and thereby stabilizing . These models underscore that territoriality promotes evolutionary stability by aligning individual decisions with population-level outcomes, such as balanced occupancy. Evolutionary origins of territoriality are closely tied to parental investment theory, which posits that asymmetries in reproductive costs—particularly greater investment in gametes and —drive males to defend breeding territories to maximize access and protect progeny. In this , territorial defense represents a form of indirect parental care, increasing the viability of offspring in competitive environments. However, the persistence of territoriality hinges on a cost-benefit balance, where energy expended on defense, including time for patrols and displays, is offset by resource monopolization; threshold models predict its prevalence only when resource value surpasses these costs, as seen in with clumped, high-stakes territories.

Types and Characteristics

Classification by Resources

Animal territories are classified according to the primary resources they protect, which shapes their functional roles and the intensity of defense behaviors exhibited by the occupants. This categorization highlights how evolutionary pressures related to resource acquisition drive variations in territorial strategies across species. Food-based territories are defended primarily to secure exclusive access to areas, especially in environments where food availability limits survival and reproduction. Such territories are prevalent among herbivores, where individuals or groups patrol and confront intruders to maintain control over vegetation or prey patches. For instance, rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) vigorously defend small territories around nectar-rich flower patches to monopolize food sources and reduce competition from conspecifics. This type of territory emphasizes sustained nutritional intake over other functions, allowing occupants to optimize energy gain while minimizing foraging risks. Mating or breeding territories, in contrast, center on reproductive opportunities rather than sustenance, often consisting of display arenas or nesting sites where individuals attract partners. These areas are typically small and seasonally occupied, with defense focused on preventing rival displays that could deter potential mates. A prominent example occurs in birds of paradise (Paradisaeidae family), where males form leks—communal display grounds—and defend individual plots within them solely for courtship performances, as females visit briefly for mating without relying on the territory for food or shelter. Such territories underscore the role of in territorial evolution, prioritizing mate attraction through visual and acoustic signals. All-purpose territories integrate multiple essential resources, including food, shelter, and breeding sites, providing a comprehensive spatial unit for daily activities and long-term residency. This type is common in small, sedentary mammals that cannot afford to separate functions due to mobility constraints or uniform resource needs. In voles (Microtus spp.), for example, individuals defend overlapping yet exclusive all-purpose territories encompassing burrows, food storage caches, and mating areas, enabling efficient resource management within a confined home range. These territories reflect an adaptive balance, supporting both survival and reproduction in unpredictable or resource-limited habitats. Non-resource territories represent uncommon variants where defense targets symbolic or social value rather than tangible provisions, often linked to dominance hierarchies that confer indirect fitness benefits. This form highlights territoriality's role in social structuring beyond material gains. Environmental distribution profoundly influences territory classification, as clumped resources promote specialized, compact defenses around high-value patches, whereas dispersed distributions favor expansive all-purpose territories to aggregate scattered necessities. In heterogeneous landscapes, for instance, reptiles like the (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) intensify patrols over clustered food sources, adapting territory type to spatial variability for optimal security.

Variation in Size and Location

The size of animal territories varies widely across , influenced primarily by ecological and physiological factors. Resource abundance plays a key role, with territories typically smaller in areas of high , such as prey or availability, as individuals or groups require less space to meet their needs. Conversely, in resource-poor environments, territories expand to encompass sufficient grounds. Body size also determines territory scale, with larger animals generally maintaining bigger territories due to higher energetic demands; this relationship follows allometric scaling, where territory area typically scales with body mass to a power of about 1.0, though exponents range from 0.8 to 1.6 across taxa. further modulates size, as higher densities of conspecifics lead to compressed territories through increased and interference. Representative examples illustrate this spectrum: in ants like the Solenopsis invicta, territories are compact, often spanning just a few square meters around the nest and foraging sites, reflecting their high-density colonial lifestyle and abundant micro-resources. In contrast, gray wolves (Canis lupus) hold expansive territories averaging 200–300 km² in prey-rich areas like , but up to 1,000 km² or more in harsher, low-prey environments, allowing packs to track herds over vast ranges. Territory location is shaped by features that enhance and . Animals often select sites near essential resources like sources for hydration and cover for predator avoidance, as seen in herbivores positioning territories adjacent to rivers or wooded areas. Proximity to migration routes also influences placement, with like birds or ungulates establishing seasonal territories along flyways or paths to intercept passing resources. Boundaries can shift seasonally in response to environmental changes, such as rainfall or , prompting expansions during resource booms or contractions in lean periods to conserve energy. Territory sizes are measured using technologies like radio-tracking and GPS collars, which record animal movements to delineate core use areas via methods such as minimum convex polygons or . These approaches provide precise data on spatial extent, often integrated with allometric models to predict sizes based on body mass across taxa. Within species, territory size exhibits intra-specific variation related to and age. In many birds, males defend larger territories than females, particularly during breeding seasons, to secure mates and nesting sites, as observed in species like the superb fairy-wren where male ranges exceed female ones by up to 50%. Age-related changes also occur, with older individuals often holding larger or more stable territories due to experience and dominance, while juveniles occupy smaller, peripheral areas until maturity.

Establishment Processes

Initial Claiming

Animals typically initiate territory claiming through dispersal from natal or previous areas, where juveniles or subadults depart to reduce and risks, often traveling distances that vary by and environmental conditions. This dispersal phase sets the stage for settlement patterns, in which individuals assess potential sites based on availability, such as food density, nesting suitability, or opportunities, prioritizing areas that maximize fitness. For instance, in many bird , early spring migrants evaluate habitats sequentially upon arrival, favoring unoccupied patches with high to establish breeding grounds. Priority effects play a crucial role in initial claiming, as first arrivals often secure advantageous positions due to lower costs and preemptive , creating a competitive edge over later individuals. In vacant areas, for ownership may arise through dominance displays or escalated fights, where the resource-holding potential (RHP)—reflecting an individual's fighting ability—influences outcomes, with stronger contenders more likely to prevail and retain the site. These interactions favor proactive settlers who can deter rivals without prolonged conflict, thereby accelerating establishment. Exploration is integral to this process, involving and mapping of potential sites to gauge suitability and detect signs of prior occupation, such as chemical marks or visual indicators left by previous animals. Animals repeatedly visit promising locations to build familiarity, using these cues to avoid contested areas or confirm vacancy, which enhances efficient . This exploratory allows individuals to accumulate positive experiences in resource-rich zones, increasing their commitment to claiming them over time. Representative examples illustrate these dynamics. In songbirds, such as , males prospect and stake claims during the dawn chorus by singing from potential sites, signaling ownership and deterring intruders to secure breeding territories early in the season. Similarly, male threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) claim shallow-water territories in early breeding months through aggressive displays, including charges and zig-zag swims, to monopolize nesting areas against rivals. Success in initial claiming is modulated by several factors, including age, physical condition, and timing relative to seasonal peaks like breeding periods. Younger dispersers may face higher risks but gain from natal philopatry influences, while individuals in prime condition—bolstered by better or —win more contests and select superior sites. Arriving during optimal windows, such as pre-breeding influxes, amplifies advantages by aligning with peaks and reducing competitor .

Advertising Techniques

Animals employ a variety of advertising techniques to signal their territorial boundaries, thereby deterring intruders and minimizing costly confrontations. These methods primarily involve chemical, visual, and auditory cues that convey and the owner's fitness to conspecifics. Such signals are often persistent or repeated to maintain of the territory's occupation over time. Scent marking is a prevalent chemical technique used by many mammals to advertise , involving the deposition of , , or glandular secretions that release pheromones for long-lasting olfactory signals. These marks inform intruders of the territory holder's presence, identity, and dominance status, often placed at prominent boundary points to maximize detection. For instance, domestic cats (Felis catus) scratch trees or posts, leaving both visual scratches and from paw glands to claim areas. Pheromones in these marks can persist for days or weeks, providing a low-energy means of ongoing advertisement compared to direct interactions. Visual displays serve to actively broadcast territorial claims through behaviors such as patrolling boundaries, adopting erect postures to appear larger, or constructing physical structures. Patrolling reinforces ownership by making the territory holder visible to potential intruders, while postures signal readiness to defend. Some species build elaborate boundary features; male bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchidae family), for example, construct avenue-like bowers from twigs and decorate them with colorful objects, which not only attract mates but also visually advertise the male's territory and deter rivals by demonstrating resource control and construction ability. These displays are particularly effective in open habitats where visibility is high. Auditory signals, including songs, calls, and drumming, allow animals to advertise territories over long distances, especially in dense or aquatic environments where visual cues are limited. The , duration, and complexity of these vocalizations often indicate the signaler's strength and motivation, with more vigorous calls signaling higher fitness to repel challengers. In frog choruses, such as those of species in the genus Rana, males produce advertisement calls that collectively form a acoustic boundary, where call rate and synchronization convey territorial occupancy and deter intruders without physical contact. These signals can travel hundreds of meters, depending on acoustics. Many animals integrate multiple sensory modalities in their advertising to enhance signal efficacy, combining , visual, and auditory cues for and broader reach. This multimodal approach ensures communication persists under varying conditions; for example, can disperse or dilute scent marks, reducing their reliability, so animals may pair them with vocalizations that are less affected by air currents. Environmental factors like wind speed and direction thus influence signal choice, with stronger winds potentially favoring auditory over olfactory methods to maintain effective boundary advertisement. Territorial advertising incurs energy costs, which function as honest signals of the owner's fitness and commitment to defense. Producing elaborate displays, such as prolonged or frequent , demands significant metabolic , ensuring only healthy individuals can sustain them without compromising . This costliness prevents deception, as weaker animals cannot afford consistent signaling, thereby reliably indicating the risks of intrusion. Studies across taxa show these energetic demands correlate with , reinforcing the of such techniques.

Maintenance and Defense

Ritualized Behaviors

Ritualized behaviors in animal territoriality consist of stereotyped, species-specific displays that serve to assess the fighting ability of rivals and deter intrusions while minimizing the risk of physical injury. These actions, often low-cost in terms of energy and harm, allow territory holders to signal their commitment to defense without escalating to costly , thereby resolving conflicts efficiently. Such behaviors are prevalent across vertebrates and some , functioning as a form of mutual assessment where both parties gauge each other's resolve and resource-holding potential. Common forms include threat postures, chases, and stylized confrontations, such as the gill flaring and fin spreading displays performed by male Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) when confronting territorial intruders. In these fish, gill flaring acts as an initial, acute response to signal dominance and ward off rivals, often preventing actual fighting. Among birds, song duels or countersinging represent another widespread ritual, where territorial males, like black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), overlap or match the songs of intruders to convey aggression and assert ownership without physical contact. In mammals, piloerection—raising fur to appear larger—serves as a threat posture in species such as domestic cats (Felis catus) and wild felids during territorial encounters, enhancing perceived size to intimidate opponents. These displays not only deter rivals but can also play a dual role in mate attraction, as vigorous territorial signaling advertises the defender's fitness to potential partners. The evolutionary basis of ritualized behaviors lies in their ability to reduce the costs of territorial defense, as modeled by , where strategies like "display" evolve as evolutionarily stable alternatives to unrestrained fighting, especially when injury risks are high. By escalating only when necessary, these behaviors promote and , as unsupported displays may lead to exploitation by cheaters, but honest signaling correlates with genuine fighting ability. In many , such rituals have become conventionalized signals, detached from their original motor patterns, further minimizing escalation. Contextual variation in ritualized behaviors often depends on the intruder's sex and the value of the defended resource; for instance, male bearded dragons ( vitticeps) exhibit more intense threat displays toward same-sex intruders near high-value breeding sites compared to opposite-sex or low-stakes encounters. Similarly, in songbirds, the vigor of countersinging increases with the perceived threat level of male rivals encroaching on core breeding areas, but diminishes against females or peripheral intrusions. This flexibility ensures that energy is allocated optimally, with displays intensifying as the potential cost of territory loss rises.

Active Defense Strategies

Active defense strategies in animal territoriality involve direct physical engagements that escalate from initial displays to , aiming to repel intruders and maintain exclusive access to resources. These confrontations often include fighting, , or charging, which can result in boundary shifts favoring the victor. Such physical interactions carry high risks of or , but they resolve disputes when lower-cost signals fail. In many species, territorial fights begin with ritualized behaviors like displays but progress to aggressive actions if the intruder persists. For instance, male lizards such as collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris) or anoles often escalate push-up displays into chases and bites to defend perches or foraging areas, with outcomes determining who retains the site. Similarly, wolf packs (Canis lupus) conduct regular border patrols to detect and confront rivals, leading to charges and fights that reinforce territory exclusivity. Tactical elements enhance the effectiveness of these defenses, particularly in social species. Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) employ group-based strategies, including and "war dances" where clans synchronously approach and posture aggressively toward intruders, often from cover or elevated positions to and drive off threats without full-scale combat. This collective action reduces individual risk while escalating pressure on opponents. The resolution of physical confrontations frequently follows winner-loser effects, where prior victories increase an individual's likelihood of success in future disputes, while defeats lead to subordinate and potential territory abandonment. These effects stem from physiological changes post-fight, influencing motivation and performance in subsequent encounters. Asymmetries in , , or condition often determine fight outcomes, with larger or fitter defenders prevailing and expanding territories. Hormonal surges, such as elevated testosterone during challenges, further bolster and endurance in defenders, particularly in seasonally territorial males.

Behavioral Strategies

Polyterritoriality

Polyterritoriality is a behavioral strategy observed primarily in polygynous species, where an individual—typically a —simultaneously claims and defends multiple spatially separated territories to attract and mate with more than one partner. This phenomenon is most prevalent among birds, occurring in approximately 37% of European that exhibit and documented in at least 11 North American species, often among long-distance migrants like warblers in the subfamily Parulinae. In mammals, it is less commonly reported. The primary advantage of polyterritoriality lies in its potential to maximize by increasing mating opportunities and diversifying resource access across territories. Males can advertise their presence and quality from multiple sites, thereby attracting additional females without concentrating all efforts in a single area, which enhances overall fitness in resource-variable environments. For instance, in songbirds, this strategy facilitates extra-pair copulations and polygynous pairings, allowing males to sire in separated nests while minimizing direct over a single site. Despite these benefits, polyterritoriality presents notable challenges, including substantial energetic costs from traveling between distant territories—often 2-3 km apart—and the consequent division of defensive and parental efforts. This leads to uneven investment, with primary territories receiving more attention and resources, while secondary ones experience reduced protection and care, potentially lowering overall brood survival rates. In the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), a classic example, males routinely hold multiple disjunct nests, but this spatial separation often results in secondary females bearing a greater share of parental duties due to the male's split focus. From an evolutionary perspective, polyterritoriality aligns with Trivers' parental investment theory (1972), which posits that the asymmetry in reproductive investment—females committing more to production and care—enables males to pursue multiple matings with minimal incremental cost. In multi-territory males, this manifests as a tactic to exploit the bias toward unmated females, optimizing lifetime reproductive output despite the logistical trade-offs.

Resource-Specific Adaptations

Animals adapt their territorial behaviors to the specific resources they defend, tailoring territory size, defense intensity, and duration to maximize benefits while minimizing costs associated with the resource's distribution, renewability, and value. For instance, when is the primary resource, territories tend to be larger in areas of sparse or unpredictable supply to ensure adequate intake, but contract in abundant patches where defense costs outweigh benefits. This economic optimization is evident across taxa, where animals assess resource profitability before investing in defense, leading to flexible strategies that respond to seasonal or local variations in availability. In contrast, territories for mates or nesting sites often prioritize exclusivity over size, reflecting the high reproductive stakes involved. These adaptations underscore territoriality as a dynamic response to ecological pressures rather than a fixed . Feeding territories exemplify adaptations to resource density and mobility, where animals defend clumped, high-value sources that are economically defensible. Tropical hummingbirds, for example, aggressively patrol -rich flower patches, excluding conspecifics and even s through chases and displays, with territory boundaries shifting based on flower renewal rates and quality. Similarly, song sparrows adjust territory sizes seasonally and habitat-specifically: in resource-poor shrublands, territories span several thousand square yards to secure prey, while in nutrient-dense salt marshes, they shrink to one-fifth or less, reducing energy spent on patrols. In and , feeding territories form around sites or grounds, with defense escalating when is scarce and predictable, such as during hatches. These strategies ensure exclusive access to calories essential for survival and reproduction, but dissolve when resources become too dispersed or abundant to warrant defense. Mating and nesting territories adapt to the need for attracting partners or protecting , often resulting in smaller, more intensely defended areas compared to feeding territories. In lekking birds like , males establish compact display arenas on communal grounds, using vocalizations and postures to compete for female attention without providing food or nests, an suited to where females select mates based on rather than resources. Sea lions similarly defend beach segments for harems during breeding, with aggression peaking to secure mating access amid high male density. For nesting, colonial seabirds such as limit defense to a few square feet around nests, focusing on egg and chick protection from predators and rivals, while some extend this to foraging for nest-building materials like pebbles. These resource-specific defenses are typically seasonal, intensifying during breeding to align with reproductive timelines and relaxing afterward.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/territoriality
  2. https://avesbiology.com/birdterritories.html
  3. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6849&context=wilson_bulletin
  4. https://science.sandiegozoo.org/science-blog/territoriality-what-how-and-why-it-matters-species%25E2%2580%2599-reintroductions
  5. https://www.britannica.com/science/territorial-behaviour
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3427572/
  7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4159278
  8. https://www.nsf.gov/news/wildlife-territorial-behavior-could-play-larger
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233292878_The_Functions_of_Territory
  10. https://archive.org/download/territoryinbirdl00howauoft/territoryinbirdl00howauoft.pdf
  11. https://nwrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/NWRCPubs1/id/3660/download
  12. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.2356
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4043092/
  14. https://academic.oup.com/book/61362/chapter/532866287
  15. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/423827
  16. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Rufous_Hummingbird/overview
  17. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/birds-of-the-gods-birds-of-paradise-and-sexual-selection/6234/
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/vole
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3619503/
  20. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/17/1/243/2061783
  21. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.2512
  22. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1934139
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380020303975
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/5650
  25. https://www.nps.gov/articles/yellowstone-wolf-facts.htm
  26. https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wolf/sells--mitchell.-2020.-the-economics-of-territory-selection.pdf
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7561532/
  28. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.14055
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6322554/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41943-2
  31. https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/141/4/ukae025/7686664
  32. https://repository.si.edu/bitstreams/41d601ff-1f0f-4b5e-9e75-16a1bf039502/download
  33. https://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Morrell03.pdf
  34. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00343.x
  35. https://www.nanfa.org/ac/stickleback-behavior.pdf
  36. https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/science/eerc/publications/2022-05-ord2021.pdf
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/pheromones-and-animal-behaviour/scent-marking-and-territorial-behaviour/3F058AACFD20FA760485BB470EE7DCEE
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347273800120
  39. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Methods-of-scent-marking-in-the-domestic-cat-Feldman/6f6465a346cc07e63f955a19eeffaaf640035244
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01584197.2025.2557480
  41. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/13/1/109/181490
  42. https://academic.oup.com/book/8240/chapter/153815274
  43. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/8/745/6618787
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3008630/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519374901106
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10164-016-0489-1
  47. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.161058798
  48. https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12983-022-00458-9
  49. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/29/5/1004/4857217
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7374745/
  51. https://www.californiaherps.com/behavior/lizardlifehistorymales.html
  52. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.26.268185.full
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12561160/
  54. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2008/How-Collared-Lizards-Fight
  55. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/ys-24-1-territoriality-and-inter-pack-aggression-in-gray-wolves-shaping-a-social-carnivores-life-history.htm
  56. https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/189bufferzones.pdf
  57. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1993
  58. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/dec/meerkat-mobs-do-war-dance-protect-territory
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69664-x
  60. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12051
  61. https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-9994-10-6
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20211184/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2954190/
  64. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2369&context=jfo
  65. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199830060/obo-9780199830060-0230.xml
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534789900566
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229845542_Territory_in_the_Pied_Flycatcher
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065345408601990
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232686447_A_Review_of_Ecological_Determinants_of_Territoriality_within_Vertebrate_Species
  70. http://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Territoriality.html
  71. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio373/chapters/Chapter10/Chapter10.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.