The Effect of Female Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster) Immigrants on Space Use of Conspecific Female Residents

American Midland Naturalist

Volumn 151, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 88-92

  Hayes, Loren D ^a   Lin, Y Kirk ^a   Solomon, Nancy G ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HOME RANGE; IMMIGRATION; RODENT; SPACE USE;

MICROTUS; MICROTUS OCHROGASTER; MURIDAE; RODENTIA;

EID: 0842269877     PISSN: 00030031     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031(2004)151[0088:TEOFPV]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BOYCE, C. C. K. AND J. L. BOYCE, III. 1988. Population biology of Microtus arvalis. II. Natal and breeding dispersal of female. J. Anim. Ecol. 57:723-736.
2. GETZ, L. L., B. MCGUIRE, T. PIZZUTO, J. E. HOFMANN AND B. FRASE. 1993. Social organization of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). J. Mammm., 74:44-58.
3. JACQUOT, J. J. AND N. G. SOLOMON. 1997. Effects of site familiarity on movement patterns of male prairie voles Microtus ochrograster. Am. Midl. Nat., 138:414-417.
4. LAMBIN, X. 1997. Home range shifts by breeding female Townsend's voles (Microtus townsendii): a test of the territory bequeathal hypothesis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 40:363-372.
5. MCGUIRE, B., L. L. GETZ, J. E. HOFMANN, T. PIZZUTO AND B. FRASE. 1993. Natal dispersal and philopatry in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in relation to population density, season, and natal social environment. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 32:293-302.
6. _, T. PIZZUTO AND L. L. GETZ. 1990. Potential for social interaction in a natural population of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Can. J. Zool., 68:391-398.
7. OSTFELD, R. S., S. R. PUGH, J. O. SEAMON AND R. H. TAMARIN. 1988. Space use and reproductive success in a population of meadow voles. J. Anim. Ecol., 57:385-394.
8. PALANZA, P., L. RE, D. MAINARDI, P. F. BRAIN AND S. PARMIGIANI. 1996. Male and female competitive strategies of wild house mice pairs (Mus musculus domesticus) confronted with intruders of different sex and age in artificial territories. Behaviour, 133:863-882.
9. PUSENIUS, J., R. S. OSTFELD AND F. KEESING. 2000. Patch selection and tree-seedling predation by resident vs. immigrant meadow voles. Ecology, 81:2951-2956.
10. SOLOMON, N. G. 1993. Comparison of parental behavior in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Can. J. Zool., 71:434-437.
11. STAMPS, J. A. AND V. V. KRISHNAN. 1995. Territory acquisition in lizards: III. Competing for space. Anim. Behav., 49:679-683.
12. _ AND _. 1994a. Territory acquisition in lizards: I. First encounters. Anim. Behav., 47:1375-1385.
13. _ AND _. 1994b. Territory acquisition in lizards: II. Establishing social and spatial relationships. Anim. Behav., 47:1387-1400.
14. WIGGETT, D. AND D. A. BOAG. 1992. The resident fitness hypothesis and dispersal by yearling female Columbian ground-squirrels. Can. J. Zool., 70:1984-1994.
15. WOLFF, J. O. 1993. Why are female small mammals territorial? Oikos, 68:364-370.
16. _ AND J. A. PETERSON. 1998. An offspring-defense hypothesis for territoriality in female mammals. Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 10:227-239.
17. _, M. H. FREEBERG AND R. D. DUESER. 1983. Interspecific territoriality in two species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 12:237-242.