Interspecific aggression and behavioural dominance among four sympatric species of shrews

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 434-448

  Rychlik, Leszek ^a   Zwolak, Rafal ^b,c  

^a MAMMAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Poland)

^b ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING;

BEHAVIORAL DOMINANCE; INTERSPECIFIC AGGRESSION; INTERSPECIFIC PAIRS; SYMPATRIC SPECIES;

BIODIVERSITY;

AGGRESSION; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COEXISTENCE; DEFENSE BEHAVIOR; INTERFERENCE COMPETITION; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; MAMMAL; SYMPATRY;

CABRERA; NEOMYS; NEOMYS ANOMALUS; NEOMYS FODIENS; SOREX; SOREX ARANEUS; SOREX MINUTUS; SORICIDAE;

EID: 33744948379     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/z06-017     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Ambrose, R.F., and Meehan, T.E. 1977. Aggressive behavior of Perognathus parvus and Peromyscus maniculatus. J. Mammal. 58: 665-668.
2. Anonymous. 2003. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim. Behav. 65: 249-255.
3. Aulak, W. 1970. Small mammal communities of the Białowieża National Park. Acta Theriol. 15: 465-515.
4. Baxter, R.M., and Irwin, D. 1995. A laboratory study of agonistic behaviour in the red musk shrew, Crocidura flavescens (Geoffroy I. 1827). Z. Saeugetierkd. 60: 193-205.
5. Blaustein, A.R., and Risser, A.C.J. 1976. Interspecific interactions between three sympatric species of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys). Anim. Behav. 24: 381-385.
6. Camargo, J.A. 1992. Can dominance influence stability in competitive interactions? Oikos, 64: 605-610.
7. Churchfield, S. 1990. The natural history of shrews. Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd., Bromley, UK.
8. Churchfield, S., and Rychlik, L. 2006. Diets and coexistence in Neomys and Sorex shrews in Białowieża Forest, eastern Poland. J. Zool. (Lond.). In press.
9. Churchfield, S., and Sheftel, B.I. 1994. Food niche overlap and ecological separation in a multi-species community of shrews in the Siberian taiga. J. Zool. (Lond.), 234: 105-124.
10. Cihakova, J., and Frynta, D. 1996. Intraspecific and interspecific behavioural interactions in the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) and the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) in a neutral cage. Folia Zool. 45: 105-113.
11. Connell, J.H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am. Nat. 122: 661-696.
12. Cranford, J.A., and Derting, T.L. 1983. Intra and interspecific behavior of Microtus pennsylvanicus and Microtus pinetorum. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13: 7-11.
13. Croin Michielsen, N. 1966. Intraspecific and interspecific competition in the shrews Sorex araneus L., and S. minutus L. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 17: 73-174.
14. Crowcroft, W.P. 1955. Notes on the behaviour of shrews. Behaviour, 8: 63-80.
15. Curran-Everett, D. 2000. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integ. Comp. Physiol. 279: R1-R8.
16. Dehnel, A. 1950. Studies on the genus Neomys Kaup. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. C, 5: 1-63. [In Polish with Russian and English summaries.]
17. Dempster, E.R., and Perrin, M.R. 1990. Interspecific aggression in sympatric Gerbillurus species. Z. Saeugetierkd. 55: 392-398.
18. Dickman, C.R. 1988. Body size, prey size, and community structure in insectivorous mammals. Ecology, 69: 569-580.
19. Dickman, C.R. 1991. Mechanisms of competition among insectivorous mammals. Oecologia (Berl.), 85: 464-471.
20. Downes, S., and Bauwens, D. 2002. An experimental demonstration of direct behavioural interference in two Mediterranean lacertid lizard species. Anim. Behav. 63: 1037-1046.
21. Eccard, J.A., and Ylönen, H. 2002. Direct interference or indirect exploitation? An experimental study of fitness costs of interspecific competition in voles. Oikos, 99: 580-590.
22. Eccard, J.A., and Ylönen, H. 2003. Interspecific competition in small rodents: from populations to individuals. Evol. Ecol. 17: 423-440.
23. Ellenbroek, F.J.M. 1990. An experimental analysis of interspecific competition in the shrews Sorex araneus L., and S. minutus L. (Soricidae, Insectivora). Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands.
24. Ellenbroek, F.J.M., and Hamburger, J. 1991. Interspecific interactions between the shrews Sorex araneus L., and S. minutus L. (Soricidae, Insectivora) and the use of habitat - a laboratory study. Neth. J. Zool. 41: 32-61.
25. Falkenberg, J.C., and Clarke, J.A. 1998. Microhabitat use of deermice: effects of interspecific interaction risks. J. Mammal. 79: 558-565.
26. Feldhamer, G.A., Drickamer, L.C., Vessey, S.H., and Merrit, J.F. 1999. Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, and ecology. WBC/McGraw-Hill, Boston.
27. Fox, B.J., and Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1992. An assembly rule for functional groups applied to North American soricid communities. J. Mammal. 73: 491-503.
28. Frye, R.J. 1983. Experimental field evidence of interspecific aggression between two species of kangaroo rat (Dipodomys). Oecologia (Berl.), 59: 74-78.
29. Gliwicz, J., and Taylor, J.R.E. 2002. Comparing life histories of shrews and rodents. Acta Theriol. 47(Suppl. 1): 185-208.
30. Grant, P.R. 1970. Experimental studies of competitive interaction in two-species system. II. The behaviour of Microtus, Peromyscus and Clethrionomys species. Anim. Behav. 18: 411-426.
31. Grant, P.R. 1972. Interspecific competition among rodents. V. Summary of the evidence for rodent species, and some generalisations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 79-106.
32. Grant, P.R. 1976. Competition between species of small mammals (review). In Populations of small mammals under natural conditions. Spec. Publ. Pymatuning Lab. Ecol. No. 5. pp. 38-51.
33. Hanski, I. 1984. Food consumption, assimilation and metabolic rate in six species of shrew (Sorex and Neomys). Ann. Zool. Fenn. 21: 157-165.
34. Hanski, I. 1985. What does a shrew do in an energy crisis? In Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, Reading, UK, 1984. Edited by R.M. Sibly and R.H. Smith. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. pp. 247-252.
35. Hanski, I. 1994. Population biological consequences of body size in Sorex. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ. No. 18. pp. 15-26.
36. Hanski, I., and Kaikusalo, A. 1989. Distribution and habitat selection of shrews in Finland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 26: 339-348.
37. Harper, S.J., and Batzli, G.O. 1997. Are staged dyadic encounters useful for studying aggressive behaviour of arvicoline rodents? Can. J. Zool. 75: 1051-1058.
38. Hawes, M.L. 1977. Home range, territoriality and ecological separation in sympatric shrews Sorex vagrans and Sorex obscurus. J. Mammal. 58: 354-367.
39. Johannesen, E., Brudevoll, J., Jenstad, M., Korslund, L., and Kristoffersen, S. 2002. Behavioural dominance of grey-sided voles over bank voles in dyadic encounters. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 39: 43-47.
40. Kalinin, A.A., Shchipanov, N.A., and Demidova, T.B. 1998. Behaviour of four species of shrews Sorex isodon, S. araneus, S. caecutiens, and S. minutus (Insectivora, Soricidae) in interspecific contacts. Zool. Zh. 77: 838-849. [In Russian with English summary.]
41. Kaufmann, J.H. 1983. On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 58: 1-20.
42. Keddy, P.A. 1989. Competition. Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
43. Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1991. Competition and coexistence in shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae). In The biology of the Soricidae. Edited by J.S. Findley and T.L. Yates. Spec. Publ., Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 15-22.
44. Krushinska, N.L., and Pucek, Z. 1989. Ethological study of sympatric species of European water shrews. Acta Theriol. 34: 269-285.
45. Krushinska, N.L., and Rychlik, L. 1993. Intra- and interspecific antagonistic behaviour in two sympatric species of water shrews: Neomys fodiens and N. anomalus. J. Ethol. 11: 11-21.
46. Krushinska, N.L., and Rychlik, L. 1994. Aggressiveness of a Neomys fodiens parous female towards conspecific and N. anomalus intruders. Acta Theriol. 39: 329-332.
47. Krushinska, N.L., Rychlik, L., and Pucek, Z. 1994. Agonistic interactions between resident and immigrant sympatric water shrews: Neomys fodiens and N. anomalus. Acta Theriol. 39: 227-247.
48. Kryštufek, B., and Vohralík, V. 2001. Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus: introduction, checklist, Insectivora. Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče Republike Slovenije, Koper, Slovenia.
49. Kryštufek, B., Vohralík, V., and Kurtonur, C. 1998. A new look at the identity and distribution of water shrews (Neomys spp.) in Turkey. Z. Saeugetierkd. 63: 129-136.
50. Langkilde, T., and Shine, R. 2004. Competing for crevices: interspecific conflict influences retreat-site selection in montane lizards. Oecologia (Berl.), 140: 684-691.
51. Law, R., Marrow, P., and Dieckman, U. 1997. On evolution under asymmetric competition. Evol. Ecol. 11: 485-501.
52. Lehner, P.N. 1998. Handbook of ethological methods. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. Lemen, C.A., and Freeman, P.W. 1983. Quantification of competition among coexisting heteromyids in the Southwest. Southwest. Nat. 28: 41-46.
54. MacArthur, R.H. 1977. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Harper & Row, New York.
55. Martin, I.G. 1980. An ethogram of captive Blarina brevicauda. Am. Midl. Nat. 104: 290-294.
56. May, R.M. (Editor). 1981. Patterns in mult-species communities. In Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. pp. 197-227.
57. Maynard Smith, J., and Parker, G.A. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim. Behav. 24: 159-175.
58. McNab, B.K. 1991. The energy expenditure of shrews. In The biology of the Soricidae. Edited by J.S. Findley and T.L. Yates. Spec. Publ., Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. pp. 35-45.
59. Michalak, I. 1982. Reproduction and behaviour of the Mediterranean water shrew under laboratory conditions. Saeugetierkd. Mitt. 30: 307-310.
60. Miller Baker, A.E. 1974. Interspecific aggressive behaviour of pocket gophers Thomomys bottae and T. talpoides (Geomyidae: Rodentia). Ecology, 55: 671-673.
61. Mitchell-Jones, A.J., Amori, G., Bogdanowicz, W., Kryštufek, B., Reijnders, P.J.H., Spitzenberger, F., Stubbe, M., Thissen, J.B.M., Vohralik, V., and Zima, J. (Editors). 1999. The atlas of European mammals. T. & A.D. Poyser Ltd., London.
62. Moraleva, N.V. 1989. Intraspecific interactions in the common shrew Sorex araneus in central Siberia. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 26: 425-432.
63. Moynihan, M. 1998. The social regulation of competition and aggression in animals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
64. Neet, C.R. 1989. Evaluation de la territorialité interspécifique entre Sorex araneus et S. coronatus dans une zone de syntopie (Insectivora, Soricidae). Mammalia, 53: 329-335.
65. Nevo, E., Naftali, G., and Guttman, R. 1975. Aggression patterns and speciation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 72: 3250-3254.
66. Niethammer, J., and Krapp, F. (Editors). 1990. Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas. Band 3/I. Insektenfresser-Herrentiere. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.
67. Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S.D., and Järvinen, O. 1979. Interspecific aggression and the limiting similarity of dose competitors: the problem of size gaps in some community arrays. Am. Nat. 114: 117-129.
68. Oleinichenko, V. Yu. 2000. Behavior of the shrews Sorex volnuchini and S. raddei. Zool. Zh. 79: 939-953. [In Russian with English summary.]
69. Olsen, R.W. 1969. Agonistic behavior of the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda). J. Mammal. 50: 494-500.
70. Perri, L.M., and Randall, J.A. 1999. Behavioural mechanisms of coexistence in sympatric species of desert rodents, Dipodomys ordii and D. merriami. J. Mammal. 80: 1297-1310.
71. Persson, L. 1985. Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am. Nat. 126: 261-266.
72. Pianka, E.R. 1981. Competition and niche theory. In Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Edited by R.M. May. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. pp. 167-196.
73. Putera, J.A., and Grant, W.E. 1985. Influence of behavioural interactions of spatial segregation of sympatric Sigmoden, Baiomys, Reithrodentomys populations. J. Mammal. 66: 380-384.
74. Root, R.B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-grey gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr. 37: 317-350.
75. Rychlik, L. 1997. Differences in foraging behaviour between water shrews: Neomys anomalus and Neomys fodiens. Acta Theriol. 42: 351-386.
76. Rychlik, L. 1998. Evolution of social systems in shrews. In Evolution of shrews. Edited by J.M. Wójcik and M. Wolsan. Mammal Research Institute, Białowieża, Poland. pp. 347-406.
77. Rychlik, L. 2000. Habitat preferences of four sympatric species of shrews. Acta Theriol. 45(Suppl. 1): 173-190.
78. Rychlik, L. 2001. Habitat preferences of water shrews and root vole coexisting along a stream in Białowieża Forest. Saeugetierkd. Inf. 5: 99-112.
79. Rychlik, L. 2005. Overlap of temporal niches among four sympatric species of shrews. Acta Theriol. 50: 175-188.
80. Rychlik, L., and Jancewicz, E. 1998. Prey preferences and foraging behaviour in semi-aquatic and terrestrial shrews - cafeteria test. In Abstracts of the Euro-American Mammal Congress, Santiago de Compostela, 19-24 July 1998. Edited by S. Reig. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. p. 186.
81. Rychlik, L., and Jancewicz, E. 2002. Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes. Behav. Ecol. 13: 216-223.
82. Rychlik, L., and Ramalhinho, M.G. 2005. Habitat preferences of the Mediterranean water shrew Neomys anomalus in Portugal. In Advances in the biology of the Soricidae II. Edited by J.F. Merritt, S. Churchfield, R. Hutterer, and B.I. Sheftel. Spec. Publ. 01, International Society of Shrew Biologists, New York. pp. 241-254.
83. Rychlik, L., and Zwolak, R. 2005. Behavioural mechanisms of conflicts avoidance among shrews. Acta Theriol. 50: 289-308.
84. Rychlik, L., Ruczyński, I., Borowski, Z., and Friedrich, T. 2004. Space use and competitive interactions in shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae) revealed by radio-telemetry. Adv. Ethol. 38: 172.
85. Schoener, T.W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 122: 240-285.
86. Schröpfer, R. 1990. The structure of European small mammal communities. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Syst. Oekol. Geogr. 117: 355-367.
87. Shchipanov, N.A., Kalinin, A.A., Oleinichenko, V.Yu., and Demidova, T.B. 1998. General behavioural characteristics of shrews Sorex araneus, S. caecutiens, S. minutus, and S. isodon (Insectivora, Soricidae). Russ. J. Zool. 2: 300-312.
88. Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.
89. Taylor, J.R.E. 1998. Evolution of energetic strategies in shrews. In Evolution of shrews. Edited by J.M. Wójcik and M. Wolsan. Mammal Research Institute, Białowieża, Poland. pp. 309-346.
90. Tilman, D. 1987. The importance of the mechanisms of interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 129: 769-774.
91. Wolff, J.O., and Dueser, R.D. 1986. Noncompetitive coexistence between Peromyscus species and Clethrionomys gapperi. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 186-191.
92. Wolff, J.O., Freeberg, M.H., and Dueser. R.D. 1983. Interspecific territoriality in two sympatric species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 237-242.
93. Young, K.A. 2003. Evolution of fighting behavior under asymmetric competition: an experimental test with juvenile salmonids. Behav. Ecol. 14: 127-134.
94. Zwolak, R. 2002. Agonistic behaviour of shrews - a problem with postures. Wiad. Ekol. 48: 3-18. [In Polish with English abstract.]
95. Zwolak, R., and Rychlik, L. 2004. Does the reduction of locomotor activity serve as an aggression avoidance mechanism in shrews (Soricidae)? Electr. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. Biol. 7(2). Available from http://www.ejpau.niedia. pl/series/volume7/issue2/biology/art-06.html [accessed 30 December 2004].