Laboratory studies with rodents: Facts or artifacts?

BioScience

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 421-427

  Wolff, Jerry O ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavior; Evolution; Experimental design; Mammals; Rodents

Indexed keywords

MAMMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 0037389444     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0421:LSWRFO]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Agrell J, Wolff JO, Ylönen H. 1998. Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: Costs and consequences. Oikos 83: 507-517.
2. Berteaux D, Bêty J, Rengifo E, Bergeron J. 1999. Multiple paternity in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus): Investigating the role of the female. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45: 283-291.
3. Blumstein DT. 2000. The evolution of infanticide in rodents: A comparative analysis. Pages 178-197 in van Schaik C, Janson CH, eds. Infanticide by Males and Its Implications. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.
4. Boonstra R, Xia X, Pavone L. 1993. Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behavioral Ecology 4: 83-89.
5. Bruce HM. 1959. An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature 184: 105.
6. Cushing BS. 1985. Estrous mice and vulnerability to weasel predation. Ecology 66: 1976-1978.
7. de la Maza HM, Wolff JO, Lindsey A. 1999. Exposure to strange males does not cause pregnancy disruption or infanticide in the gray-tailed vole. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45: 107-113.
8. Dewsbury DA. 1984. Sperm competition in muroid rodents. Pages 547-571 in Smith RL, ed. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. New York: Academic Press.
9. Ferkin MH. 1999. Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus, Arvicolidae) over-mark and adjacent-mark the scent marks of same-sex conspecifics. Ethology 105: 825-837.
10. Getz LL, McGuire B, Pizzuto T, Hofmann JE, Frase B. 1993. Social organization of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Journal of Mammalogy 74: 44-58.
11. Getz LL, Simms LE, McGuire B, Snarski ME. 1997. Factors affecting life expectancy of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos 80: 362-370.
12. Gosling LM, Roberts SC. 2001. Scent-marking by male mammals: Cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Advances in the Study of Behavior 30: 169-217.
13. Hansson L. 1995. Is the indirect predator effect a special case of generalized reactions to density-dependent disturbances in cyclic vole populations? Annales Zoologica Fennici 32: 159-162.
14. Heikkilä J, Kaarsalo K, Mustonen O, Pekkarinen P. 1993. Influence of predation risk on early development and maturation in three species of Clethrionomys voles. Annales Zoologica Fennici 30: 153-161.
15. Hoffmeyer I. 1982. Responses of female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) to dominant vs. subordinate males. Behavioural Neural Biology 36: 178-188.
16. Horne TJ, Ylönen H. 1996. Female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) prefer dominant males: But what if there is no choice? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38: 401-405.
17. Huck UW, Banks EM. 1982. Differential attraction of females to dominant males: Olfactory discrimination in the brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 11: 217-222.
18. Jiménez JA, Hughes KA, Alaks G, Graham L, Lacy RC. 1994. An experimental study of inbreeding depression in natural habitats. Science 266: 271-273.
19. Johnston RE, Chiang G, Tung C. 1994. The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters. Animal Behaviour 48: 323-330.
20. Keller LF, Waller DM. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 230-241.
21. Kenney AM, Evans RL, Dewsbury DA. 1977. Postimplantation pregnancy disruption in Microtus ochrogaster, Microtus pennsylvanicus, and Peromyscus maniculatus. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 49: 365-367.
22. Koivula M, Viitala J. 1999. Rough-legged buzzards use vole scent marks to assess hunting areas. Journal of Avian Biology 30: 329-332.
23. Lambin X, Ims RA, Steen H, Yoccoz NG. 1995. Vole cycles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 179-200.
24. Mahady S, Wolff JO. 2002. A field test of the Bruce effect in the monogamous prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52: 31-37.
25. Mappes T, Koskela E, Ylönen H. 1998. Breeding suppression in voles under predation risk of small mustelids: Laboratory or methodological artifact? Oikos 82: 365-369.
26. McGuire B, Drewsen RK, Mahoney T, Novak M. 1992. The effects of mate removal on pregnancy success in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Biology of Reproduction 47: 37-42.
27. McPhee ME. Forthcoming. Generations in captivity increase behavioral variance in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus. Biological Conservation.
28. Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E. 2000. The impact of predation risk from small mustelids on prey populations. Mammal Review 30: 147-156.
29. Oliveras D, Novak MA. 1986. A comparison of paternal behaviour in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum, and the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 34: 519-526.
30. Penn D, Potts W. 1998. Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 391-396.
31. Peterson JA. 1996. The effects of inbreeding and environmental stressors on the demography of the gray-tailed vole. PhD dissertation. University of California-Berkeley.
32. Pusenius J, Ostfeld RS. 2000. Effects of stoat's presence and auditory cues indicating its presence on tree seedling predation by meadow voles. Oikos 91: 123-130.
33. Ralls K, Harvey PH, Lyles AM. 1986. Inbreeding in natural populations of birds and mammals. Pages 35-56 in Soulé ME, ed. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
34. Roberts RL, Williams SR, Wang AK, Carter CS. 1998. Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: Influence of the sire and geographical variation. Animal Behaviour 55: 1131-1140.
35. Schwagmeyer PL. 1979. The Bruce effect: An evaluation of male/female advantages. American Naturalist 114: 932-938.
36. Solomon NG. 1993. Body size and social preference of male and female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behavior 45: 1031-1033.
37. Stehn RA, Jannett FJ Jr. 1981. Male-induced abortion in various microtine rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 62: 369-372.
38. Stehn RA, Richmond ME. 1975. Male-induced pregnancy termination in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Science 187: 1211-1213.
39. Storey AE. 1994. Pre-implantation pregnancy disruptions in female meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus (Rodentia: Muridae): Male competition or female mate choice? Ethology 98: 89-100.
40. Storey AE, Snow DT. 1990. Postimplantation pregnancy disruptions in meadow voles: Relationship to variation in male sexual and aggressive behavior. Physiology and Behaviour 47: 19-25.
41. Taylor SA, Dewsbury DA. 1988. Effects of experience and available cues on estrous versus diestrous preferences in male prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Physiology and Behaviour 42: 379-388.
42. Thomas SA. 2002. Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Animal Behaviour 63: 1121-1127.
43. Thomas SA, Wolff JO. 2002. Scent marking in voles: A reassessment of counter marking, over marking, and self-advertisement. Ethology 108: 51-62.
44. _. 2003. Scent marking in rodents: A reappraisal, problems, and future directions. Pages 143-147 in Singleton GR, Hynds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt, DM, eds. Rats, Mice, and People: Rodent Biology and Management. Canberra (Australia): Australian Center for International Agricultural Research.
45. Wolff JO. Forthcoming. Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: A field-laboratory validation. Behavioral Ecology.
46. Wolff JO, Davis-Born R. 1997. Response of gray-tailed voles to odours of a mustelid predator: A field test. Oikos 79: 543-548.
47. Wolff JO, Edge WD, Bentley R. 1994. Reproductive and behavioral biology of the gray-tailed vole. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 873-879.
48. Wolff JO, Manning TA, Meyers SM, Bentley R. 1996. Population ecology of the gray-tailed vole, Microtus canicaudus. Northwest Science 70: 334-340.
49. Wolff JO, Dunlap AS, Ritchhart E. 2001. Adult female prairie voles and meadow voles do not suppress reproduction in their daughters. Behavioural Processes 55: 157-162.
50. Wolff JO, Mech SG, Dunlap AS, Hodges KE. 2002a. Multi-male mating by paired and unpaired female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Behaviour 139: 1147-1160.
51. Wolff JO, Edge WD, Wang G. 2002b. Effects of adult sex ratios on recruitment of juvenile gray-tailed voles, Microtus canicaudus. Journal of Mammalogy 83: 947-956.
52. Woodward RL Jr, Schmick MK, Ferkin MH. 1999. Response of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster (Rodentia, Arvicolidae), to scent over-marks of two same-sex conspecifics: A test of the scent-masking hypothesis. Ethology 105: 1009-1017.
53. Ylönen H. 1989. Weasels, Mustela nivalis, suppress reproduction in cyclic bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus. Oikos 5: 138-140.
54. Ylönen H, Ronkainen H. 1994. Breeding suppression in the bank vole as an antipredatory adaptation in a predictable environment. Evolutionary Ecology 8: 658-666.