Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: A field-laboratory validation

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 286-289

  Wolff, Jerry O ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Mink; Predation risk; Scent marking; Vole

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PREDATION RISK; PREY LOCATION; RODENT; SCENT MARKING;

ANIMALIA; MAMMALIA; MICROTUS; MICROTUS OCHROGASTER; MICROTUS PINETORUM; MURIDAE; MUSTELA; MUSTELA VISON; ORYCTOLAGUS CUNICULUS; RODENTIA;

EID: 1942475952     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh009     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abramsky Z, Strauss E, Subach A, Kotler BP, Ricchman A, 1996. The effect of barn owls (Tyto alba) on the activity and microhabitat selection of Gerbillus allenbyi and Gerbillus pyramidum. Oecologia 105: 213-319.
2. Brown RE, 1979. Mammalian social odors: a critical review. Adv Study Behav 10:103-162.
3. Cushing BS, 1984. A selective preference by least weasels for oestrous versus diestrous urine of prairie deer mice. Anim Behav 32:1263-1265.
4. Cushing BS, 1985. Estrous mice and vulnerability to weasel predation. Ecology 66:1976-1978.
5. Desjardins C, Maruniak JA, Bronson FH, 1973. Social rank in house mice: differentiation revealed by ultraviolet visualization of urinary marking patterns. Science 182:939-941.
6. Eisenberg JF, Kleiman DG, 1972. Olfactory communication in mammals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 3:1-32.
7. Gosling LN, Roberts SC, 2001. Scent-marking in male mammals: cheat-proof signals of competitors and mates. Adv Study Behav 30: 169-217.
8. Heikkilä J, Kaarsalo K, Mustonen O, Pekkarinen P, 1993. Influence of predation risk on early development and maturation in three species of Clethrionomys voles. Ann Zool Fenn 30:153-161.
9. Hellstedt P, Kalske T, Hanski I, 2002. Indirect effects of least weasel presence on field vole behaviour and demography: a field experiment. Ann Zool Fenn 39:257-264.
10. Hendrie CA, Weiss SM, Eilam D, 1998. Behavioral responses of wild rodents to the calls of an owl: a comparative study. J Zool 245: 439-446.
11. Jedrzejewski W, Rychlik L, Jedrzejewski B, 1993. Responses of bank voles to odours of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural predator-prey relationships. Oikos 68: 251-257.
12. Johnston RE, 1983. Chemical signals and reproductive behavior. In: Pheromones and reproduction in mammals. (Vandenbergh JG, ed.). Orlando, Florida: Academic Press; 3-37.
13. Jonsson P, Koskela E, Mappes T, 2000. Does risk of predation by mammalian predators affect the spacing behaviour of rodents? Oecologia 122:487-492.
14. Koivula M, Korpimäki E, 2001. Do scent marks increase predation risk of microtine rodents? Oikos 97:275-281.
15. Koivula M, Viitala J, 1999. Rough-legged buzzards use vole scent marks to assess hunting areas. J Avian Biol 30:329-332.
16. Korpimäki E, Koivunenn V, Hakkarainen H, 1996. Microhabitat use and behavior of voles under weasel and raptor predation risk: predator facilitation? Behav Ecol 7:30-34.
17. Kotler BP, Blaustein I, Brown JS, 1992. Predator facilitation: the combined effects of snakes and owls on the foraging behavior of gerbils. Ann Zool Fenn 29:199-206.
18. Lambin X, Ims RA, Steen H, Yoccoz N, 1995. Vole cycles. Trends Ecol Evol 10:204.
19. Mahady S, Wolff JO, 2002. A field study of the Bruce effect in prairie voles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:31-37.
20. 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.
21. Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E, 2000. The impact of predation risk from small mustelids on prey populations. Mamm Rev 30:147-156.
22. Parsons GJ, Bondrup-Nielsen S, 1996. Experimental analysis of behaviour of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) to odours of the short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea). Ecoscience 3:63-69.
23. 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.
24. Roberts SC, Gosling LM, Thornton EA, McClung J, 2001. Scent-marking by male mice under the risk of predation. Behav Ecol 12: 698-705.
25. Thomas SA, 2002. Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Anim Behav 63:1121-1127.
26. Thomas SA, Wolff JO, 2002. Scent marking in voles: a reassessment of counter marking, over marking, and self-advertisement. Ethology 108:51-62.
27. Viitala J, Korpimäki E, Palokangas P, Koivula M, 1995. Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature 373: 425-427.
28. Wolff JO, 2003. Laboratory studies with rodents: facts or artifacts. Bioscience 53:421-427.
29. Wolff JO, Davis-Born R, 1997. Response of gray-tailed voles to odours of a mustelid predator: a field test. Oikos 79:543-548.
30. Wolff JO, Mech SG, Thomas SA, 2002. Scent marking in female prairie voles: a test of alternative hypotheses. Ethology 108:483-494.
31. Ylönen H, 1989. Weasels, Mustela nivalis, suppress reproduction in cyclic bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus. Oikos 5:138-140.
32. Ylönen H, Ronkainen H, 1994. Breeding suppression in the bank vole as an antipredatory adaptation in a predictable environment. Evol Ecol 8:658-666.