Since no reasonable limit is imposed on density and no minimum territory size is apparent, we cannot say that territorial behavior is functioning to limit density. The function of territoriality is then either to serve as a density cue or only to space the individuals. Which of these is true will depend on what we decipher the actual habitat distribution to be. Table 7 presents mean territory sizes as broken down into habitat and mated status of males. The overall sizes are not entirely consistent with the inverse correlation observed between territory size and density.
Dotted line indicates no males of that mated status present.
Comparison of territory size between birds of different mated status also produced some interesting results. The same vegetation height measurements that were used for dickcissels were also assigned to male redwing territories. This data is shown in Table 8. Territory Height Utilized vegetation 103.59 5.67 Non-utilized vegetation 87.40 2.90 Monogamous male territories 100.85 21.09 Polygynous male territories 104.69 7.66 Vegetation heights as they pertain to male redwing territories. Conclusions To conclude the discussion of the red-winged blackbird, the results of each set of data must be pooled.