Does access to females or competition among males limit male home-range size in a promiscuous rodent?

Journal of Mammalogy

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 1243-1250

  Bond, Monica L ^a   Wolff, Jerry O ^b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Density; Gray tailed vole; Home range; Microtus canicaudus; Space use

Indexed keywords

MAMMALIA; MICROTUS CANICAUDUS; MURIDAE; RODENTIA;

EID: 0011970339     PISSN: 00222372     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1383174     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. ABRAMSKY, Z., AND C. R. TRACY. 1980. Relation between home range size and regulation of population size in Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos, 34:347-355.
2. AGRELL, J., S. ERLINGE, J. NELSON, AND M. SANDELL. 1996. Shifting spacing behavior of male field voles, Microtus agrestis, over the reproductive season. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 33:243-248.
3. BUJALSKA, G. 1994. Female and male territoriality in the bank vole. Pp. 56-69, in Animal societies: individuals, interactions and organizations (J. J. Jarman and A. Rossiter, eds.). Kyoto University Press, Kyoto, Japan.
4. DAVIES, N B. 1991. Mating systems. Pp. 148-169, in Behavioral ecology (J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
5. EMLEN S. T., AND L. W. ORING. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197:215-223.
6. ERLINGE, S., I. HOOGENBOOM, J. AGRELL, J. NELSON, AND J. SANDELL. 1990. Density-related home range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. Journal of Mammalogy, 71: 597-603.
7. FORTIER G. M., AND R. H. TAMARIN. 1998. Movement of meadow voles in response to food and density manipulations: a test of the food-defense and pup-defense hypotheses. Journal of Mammalogy, 79: 337-345.
8. GAINES, M., AND M. JOHNSON. 1982. Home range size and population dynamics in the prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos, 39:63-70.
9. IMS, R. A. 1987. Male spacing systems in microtine rodents. The American Naturalist, 130:475-484.
10. _. 1988. Spatial clumping of sexually receptive females induces space sharing among male voles. Nature, 335:541-543.
11. JEPPSSON, B. 1990. Effects of density and resources on the social system of water voles. Pp. 213-226, in Social systems and populations cycles in voles. (R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh, and G. Bujalska, eds.). Birkhaus-Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.
12. KOIVUNEN, V., E. KORPIMÄKI, H. HAKKARAINEN, AND K. NORRDAHL. 1996. Prey choice in Tengmalm's owls: preference of substandard individuals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74:816-823.
13. KORPIMÄKI, E. 1985. Prey choice strategies of the kestrel Falco tinnunculus in relation to available small mammals and other Finnish birds of prey. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 22:91-104.
14. MADISON, D. M. 1980. Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behavioral Ecology, 7:65-71.
15. _. 1985. Activity rhythms and spacing. Pp. 373-413, in Biology of New World Microtus (R. H. Tamarin, ed.). Special Publication, The American Society of Mammalogists, 8:1-893.
16. MAPPES, T., M. HALONEN, J. SUHONEN, AND H. YLÖNEN. 1993. Selective avian predation on a population of the field vole, Microtus agrestis: greater vulnerability of males and subordinates. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution, 5:519-527.
17. NELSON, J. 1995. Intrasexual competition and spacing behaviour in males of the field vole, Microtus agrestis, as revealed under constant female density and spatial distribution. Oikos, 73:9-14.
18. _. 1997. Determinants of male spacing behavior in microtines: an experimental manipulation of female spatial distribution and density. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 37:217-223.
19. NORRDAHL, K., AND E. KORPIMÄKI. 1998. Does mobility or sex of voles affect risk of predation by mammalian predators? Ecology, 79:226-232.
20. OSTFELD, R. S. 1985. Limiting resources and territoriality in microtine rodents. The American Naturalist, 126:1-15.
21. _. 1986. Territoriality and mating system of California voles. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 55: 691-706.
22. _. 1990. The ecology of territoriality in small mammals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 5:411-415.
23. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 1996. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
24. TRIVERS, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pp. 597-599, in Sexual selection and the descent of man (B. G. Campbell, ed.). Adline, Chicago, Illinois.
25. VERTS, B. J., AND L. N. CARAWAY. 1987. Microtus canicaudus. Mammalian Species, 267:1-4.
26. WOLFF, J. O. 1980. Social organization of the taiga vole, Microtus xanthognathus. The Biologist, 62: 34-45.
27. _. 1985. Behavior. Pp. 340-372, in Biology of New World Microtus (R. H. Tamarin, ed.). Special Publication, The American Society of Mammalogists, 8:1-893.
28. _. 1993. Why are female small mammals territorial? Oikos, 68:364-369.
29. WOLFF, J. O., AND E. M. SCHAUBER. 1996. Space use and juvenile recruitment in gray-tailed voles in response to intruder pressure and food abundance. Acta Theriologica, 41:35-43.
30. WOLFF, J. O., W. D. EDGE, AND R. BENTLEY. 1994. Reproductive and behavioral biology of the gray-tailed vole. Journal of Mammalogy, 75:873-879.
31. WOLFF, J. O., T. A. MANNING, S. M. MEYERS, AND R. BENTLEY. 1996. Population ecology of the gray-tailed vole, Microtus canicaudus. Northwest Science, 70:334-340.