Olivia Cavalluzzi

12/7/2022
Behavior and Roost Site Patterns of a Barred Owl (Strix varia)

Abstract
Barred owls, though typically a semi-nocturnal to nocturnal species, are unique in that it
is not uncommon for them to be active during the day. They also exhibit preferences towards
taller and larger trees with high canopy cover but have the ability to adapt to a variety of
environments. In this study, I examined the diel patterns in the behavior of a single barred owl,
along with its roost preferences. My study lends support to barred owls being most active at dusk
and dawn, with the highest activity levels at dusk. I assessed the significance of tree height,
diameter at a standard height, and canopy cover and found that the owl did not prefer trees that
were significantly taller, wider, or had larger canopy cover than trees in the surrounding area
where I never observed the owl. However, my data was limited and a more comprehensive study
is needed to assess the behavioral patterns and roost site preferences of barred owls.

Introduction
The barred owl (Strix varia) is a large, grey-brown owl with a round head, brown eyes,
horizontal barring along its throat, and a dull yellow bill (Mazur & James, 2021). It is native to
eastern parts of North America but its range has greatly expanded in the past century to the west
coast (Mazur & James, 2021). Barred owls are typically semi-nocturnal to nocturnal hunters and
are typically most active at dawn and dusk (Mazur & James, 2021; Kaufman 2021). Typically,
they are also most vocal at night (Odom & Mennill, 2010). However, they can also be active
during the day, which makes them a particularly interesting species of interest (Mazure & James,
2021; Kaufman, 2021).
Barred owls live in a variety of forest habitats but previous studies have documented their
roosting preferences. Barred owls prefer to roost in tall trees (Livezey, 2007; Clement et al.
2019). They also typically prefer trees with larger diameters for roosting (Allen, 1987). In
addition, canopy cover also seems to be an important factor in roost choice, with barred owls
preferring closed upper canopies because they promote thermoregulation and offer the owls
protection from mobbing during daylight hours (Livezey, 2007; Clement et al. 2019).
In this paper, I aim to determine if a single owl that commonly roosts on the University of
Washington campus follows patterns in the literature by asking (1) how does the time of day
influence barred owl behaviors, and (2) how does tree height, diameter at standard height, and
canopy cover differ between the trees the barred owl is present in and the ones it is not. I predict
that the barred owl will be most active during dawn and dusk hours. Furthermore, I predict that
the barred owl will most commonly roost in trees that are taller, have a larger diameter, and have
a greater percentage of canopy cover than other trees in the surrounding area. Studying the
activity and behavioral patterns of barred owls helps us understand their function in food webs in
the Pacific Northwest, when to locate them and their roosts, and when they are most active, and
therefore most likely to hunt prey or attack domestic animals. Understanding barred owl roosting
preferences can help us predict where barred owls are likely to colonize, which is of particular
importance as barred owls continue to outcompete spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest (Sovern
et al., 2014).

Methods
I observed a single barred owl that commonly roosts outside Winkenwerder Forest
Laboratories on the University of Washington Seattle campus. Because my research suggested
that barred owls are most likely to be active at dawn and dusk, I collected data at these times, as
well as midday to use as a comparison. I selected an hour-long time span for each time of day
that would include sunrise, the sun’s peak, and sunset throughout the course of the study. I
defined dawn as being between 6:30 am and 7:30 am, midday as being between 12:00 pm and
1:00 pm, and dusk as being between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm. When I arrived at the tree stand, I
would thoroughly search the area to determine if the owl was present. If I was able to locate the
owl, I would begin recording its behavior immediately. For a span of 15 minutes, I recorded what
it was doing at the start of every minute, yielding 15 data points at the end of every complete
collection period. Potential behavior included: sleeping, vigilance, preening, hunting, calling, and
flying. I defined sleeping as sitting relatively still with its eyes closed and being unreactive to its
surroundings. Vigilant behavior was when the owl remained perched, but had its eyes open and
would turn its head based on changing visual and auditory elements of its environment. Preening
behavior consisted of sitting and grooming. I defined hunting as stalking, flying after, or
consuming prey, calling as any form of vocalizing regardless of whether it was sitting or flying,
and flying as being in flight without obvious vocalizing or hunting. In addition, I would record
the date, starting and ending times for data collection, the temperature, the weather, and the owl’s
location. Given that most trees on the University of Washington campus are tagged with a unique
serial number, I could record the specific number of every tree the owl was present in, as well as
its species, age, and height from the digital open access “UW Trees” ArcGIS database.
If the owl was not present, I would record the same information with the exception of
behavior. However, I would also make note of any new artifacts signaling the owl’s presence,
including owl pellets, feathers, or feces.
After concluding the behavior portion of my study, I photographed the canopy cover of
all five trees where I was able to observe the owl or found its artifacts, and five trees in the same
stand where I never observed the owl or signs of its presence. Each photo I took was square and
positioned as close to the trunk as possible to get the most accurate visual representation of the
canopy cover of the tree. I then overlaid a 10 by 10 grid over each image to determine an
estimate for canopy cover, which I calculated as the percentage of grid intersections that covered
leaves or branches from that particular tree in each photo.
Results
1. Behavior
The data set I was able to collect was quite small, which limits its usefulness for drawing
conclusions. However, some patterns still come through in my data set. Dawn exhibited
intermediately active behaviors, including preening and vigilance (Fig.1). Vigilance occurred
67% of the time, and preening occurred 33% of the time. The owl was most inactive during
midday, in which it was sleeping 42% of the time, vigilant 31% of the time, and preening 27% of
the time. Sleeping was only exhibited at midday. At dusk, the owl exhibited calling 67% of the
time and flying 33% of the time.
Dusk was the only time that these
behaviors were observed.
The barred owl was easiest to
observe at midday, with a total of
45 data points across three
sightings (Fig.2). I was only able
to locate the owl once at dawn,
resulting in 15 data points. It was
particularly difficult to locate at
dusk. I was able to locate the owl
once at this time, but could only
follow it for three minutes before
losing it in flight.
With a larger data set, a
chi-squared test would be
appropriate for this data set.
However, because of my small
sample size, there are a significant
number of zeros in my data set
(for example, I saw calling and
flying zero times at dawn and at
midday). This violates
assumptions of the chi-squared
test, meaning that a larger data set
would be needed to complete the
test.
 2. Roost Site Patterns

Figure 3 (A) (left). Histogram showing the frequency of trees falling in each height range for trees the owl was in and those it was not. Figure 3
(B) (right). Results of a two-sample t-test comparing the heights between trees the owl was in and those it was not. For this two sample t-test, I
am (1) assuming that the samples follow a normal distribution and (2) making the assumption of equal variances, which has been confirmed with
an F-test. The F-test produced a p-value of 0.9998 at num df=4 and denom df=4 at alpha=0.05, which implies that I cannot suggest with 95%
confidence that the variances of these two populations are unequal.

The test statistics for my two sample t-test for tree height (Fig. 3b) resulted in a t-value of
-0.33786 at 8 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a p-value of 0.6279. Since my p-value is
greater than my alpha (⍺=0.05), I fail to reject the null. Therefore, I cannot suggest with 95%
certainty that the barred owl roosted in taller trees than the ones it avoided. Figure 3 (A) supports
this conclusion, showing an overlap between the heights of trees the owl was and wasn’t in.

Figure 4 (A) (left). Histogram showing the frequency of trees falling in each diameter range for trees the owl was in and those it was not. Figure
4 (B) (right). Results of a two-sample t-test comparing the diameters between trees the owl was in and those it was not. For this two sample t-test,
I am (1) assuming that the samples follow a normal distribution and (2) making the assumption of equal variances, which has been confirmed
with an F-test. The F-test produced a p-value of 0.1896 at num df=4 and denom df=4 at alpha=0.05, which implies that I cannot suggest with 95%
confidence that the variances of these two populations are unequal.

The test statistics for my two sample t-test for tree diameter at a standard height (Fig. 4b)
resulted in a t-value of -0.85298 at 5.7813 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a p-value of
0.7862. Since my p-value is greater than my alpha (⍺=0.05), I fail to reject the null. Therefore, I
cannot suggest with 95% certainty that the barred owl roosted in trees with a larger diameter than
the ones it avoided. Figure 4 (A) visually supports this conclusion, showing an overlap between
the diameters of trees the owl was in and not in.
Figure 5 (A) (left). Histogram showing the frequency of trees falling in each range of canopy cover percentages for trees the owl was in and
those it was not. Figure 5 (B) (right). Results of a two sample t-test comparing the canopy cover percentages between trees the owl was in and
those it was not. For this two sample t-test I am (1) assuming that the samples follow a normal distribution and (2) making the assumption of
equal variances, which has been confirmed with an F-test. The F-test produced a p-value of 0.6918 at num df=4 and denom df=4 at alpha=0.05,
which implies that I cannot suggest with 95% confidence that the variances of these two populations are unequal.

The test statistics for my two sample t-test for canopy cover (Fig. 5b) resulted in a t-value
of 0.21146 at 7.666 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a p-value of 0.581. Since my p-value is
greater than my alpha (⍺=0.05), I fail to reject the null. Therefore, I cannot suggest with 95%
certainty that the barred owl roosted in trees with greater canopy cover than those it avoided.
Figure 5 (A) supports this conclusion, showing an overlap between the percent canopy cover of
trees the owl was in and not in.

Discussion
The results of this study were in accordance with previous studies that found that barred
owls are most active at dawn and dusk (Odom & Mennill, 2010; Mazur & James, 2021;
Kaufman, 2021). I only observed the owl flying and calling at dusk, and observed preening and
vigilance at dawn. I only observed sleeping at midday. The owl also displayed vigilance and
preening behaviors at midday, which supports previous research suggesting diurnal activity as
well (Mazur & James, 2021; Kaufman, 2021). This implies that this barred owl is most active,
and therefore most likely to hunt prey or attack domestic animals or humans at dawn and dusk.
However, my study did not find statistical significance for any of the three metrics I used
to asses roost. I was unable to suggest with 95% confidence that the barred owl preferred taller
trees, wider trees, or trees with a higher percentage of canopy cover. This contradicted previous
studies that found these to be reliable metrics to assess barred owl roost preferences (Allen,
1987; Livezey, 2007; Clement et al. 2019).
This study provided limited results due to the size of the data set. In future studies, a
more robust data set on multiple owls would yield more conclusive results. An intensive effort to
track the owls with cameras, a radio transmitter, or extensive monitoring would provide more
reliable information on their locations and behaviors. It is also of note I conducted this study in
the fall. This meant that leaves were falling during the study, which has the potential to greatly
impact canopy cover, as well as my ability to find artifacts such as owl pellets and feathers.
References
Allen, A. W. (1987). Habitat suitability index models: Barred owl. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
Clement, M. A., Barrett, K., & Baldwin, R. F. (2019). Key habitat features facilitate the presence
of barred owls in developed landscapes. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 14(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ace-01427-140212
Kaufman, K. (2021, October 20). Barred owl. Audubon. Retrieved November 30, 2022, from
https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/barred-owl
Livezey, K. B. (2007). Barred Owl Habitat and Prey: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature.
Journal of Raptor Research, 41(3), 177–201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3356/0892-
1016(2007)41[177:BOHAPA]2.0.CO;2
Mazur, K. M., & James, P. C. (2021, August 18). Barred Owl: Strix varia. Cornell Lab of
Ornithology: Birds of the World. Retrieved October 21, 2022, from
https://birdsoftheworld-org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/bow/species/brdowl/cur/introd
uction
Odom, K. J., & Mennill, D. J. (2010). A quantitative description of the vocalizations and vocal
activity of the barred owl. The Condor, 112(3), 549–560.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2010.090163
Sovern, S. G., Forsman, E. D., Olson, G. S., Biswell, B. L., Taylor, M., & Anthony, R. G. (2014).
Barred owls and landscape attributes influence territory occupancy of Northern Spotted
Owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(8), 1436–1443.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.793