The predation risks of interspecific eavesdropping: Weasel-vole interactions

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1210-1216

  Hughes, Nelika K ^a   Korpimäki, Erkki ^b   Banks, Peter B ^c  

^a AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY PATTERN; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; INTRASPECIFIC INTERACTION; LEARNING; MUSTELID; PREDATION RISK; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RODENT; SCENT MARKING; SIBLING; SIGNAL; SYMPATRY;

FINLAND;

MICROTUS; MICROTUS AGRESTIS; MURIDAE; MUSTELA NIVALIS;

EID: 77954685475     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18006.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Barbosa P, Caldas A. Do larvae of species in macrolepidopteran assemblages share traits that influence susceptibility to parasitism? Environ. Entomol. 2007, 36:329-336.
2. Brown J S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1988, 22:37-47.
3. Brown R E, MacDonald D W. Social odours in mammals. Vol. 1 and 2 1985, Clarendon Press
4. Danell K. Herbivory and tree stand composition: moose patch use in winter. Ecology 1991, 72:1350-1357.
5. Dickman C R. Mechanisms of competition among insectivorous mammals. Oecologia 1991, 85:464-471.
6. Dickman C R. Predation and habitat shift in the house mouse, Mus domesticus. Ecology 1992, 73:313-322.
7. Drickamer L C. Acceleration and delay of sexual maturation in female mice via chemosignals: circadian rhythm effects. Biol. Reprod. 1982, 27:596-601.
8. Drickamer L C. Use of odor baits in traps to test reactions to intraspecific and interspecific chemical cues in house mice living in outdoor enclosures. J. Chem. Ecol. 1992, 18:2223-2250.
9. Endler J A. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 1993, 340:215-225.
10. Gillingham B J. Meal size and feeding rate in the least weasel (Mustela nivalis). J. Mammal. 1984, 65:517-519.
11. Haim A, Rozenfeld F M. Temporal segregation in coexisting Acomys spp: the role of odour. Physiol. Behav. 1993, 54:1159-1161.
12. Holt R D, Lawton J H. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1994, 25:495-520.
13. Hughes N K. Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators. Oecologia 2009, 160:609-617.
14. Huitu O. Competition, predation and interspecific synchrony in cyclic small mammal communities. Ecography 2004, 27:197-206.
15. Hurst J L, Beynon R J. Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. BioEssays 2004, 26:1288-1298.
16. Innes D G L, Millar J S. Life histories of Clethrionomys and Microtus (Microtinae). Mammal Rev. 1994, 24:179-207.
17. Jedrzejewski W. Responses of bank voles to odors of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural predator-vole relationships. Oikos 1993, 68:251-257.
18. Koivisto E. Smaller Microtus vole species competitively superior in the absence of predators. Oikos 2007, 116:156-162.
19. Koivisto E. Species-specific limitation of vole population growth by least weasel predation: facilitation of coexistence? Oikos 2008, 117:6-12.
20. Kostan K M. The evolution of mutualistic interspecific communication: assessment and management across species. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002, 116:206-209.
21. Kotler B P. Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 1991, 72:2249-2260.
22. Laundre J W. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the " landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can. J. Zool. 2001, 79:1401-1409.
23. Lima S L, Dill L M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 1990, 68:619-640.
24. Martin P R. Response of American redstarts (suborder Passeri) and least flycatchers (suborder Tyranni) to heterospecific playback: the role of song in aggressive interactions and interference competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1996, 39:227-235.
25. Maxwell S, Delaney H. Designing experiments and analyzing data: a model comparison perspective 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Inc
26. McGregor P K. Signaling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 1993, 340:237-244.
27. McGregor P K, Dabelsteen T. Communication networks. Ecology and evolution of accoustic communication in birds 1996, 409-425. Kroodsma D E, Miller E H. In:, (eds),, Cornell Univ. Press, pp.
28. Myllymäki A. Interactions between the field vole Microtus agrestis and its microtine competitors in central Scandinavian populations. Oikos 1977, 29:570-580.
29. Nieh J C. Olfactory eavesdropping by a competitively foraging stingless bee, Trigona spinipes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271:1633-1640.
30. Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E. Predation and interspecific competition in two Microtus voles. Oikos 1993, 67:149-158.
31. Norrdahl K. Strong seasonality may attenuate trophic cascades: vertebrate predator exclusion in boreal grassland. Oikos 2002, 99:419-430.
32. Paquet P C. Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park. Can. J. Zool. 1991, 69:1721-1727.
33. Peake T M. Eavesdropping in communication networks. Animal communication networks 2005, 13-37. McGregor P K. In:, (ed.),, Cambridge Univ. Press, pp.
34. Randall J A. Olfactory communication at sandbathing loci by sympatric species of kangaroo rats. J. Mammal. 1981, 62:12-19.
35. Rasa O A E. Dwarf mongoose and hornbill mutualism in the Taru desert, Kenya. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1983, 12:181-190.
36. Roberts S C. Scent-marking by male mice under the risk of predation. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12:698-705.
37. Rozenfeld F M. Urine marking by male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus Schreber, 1780; Microtidae, Rodentia) in relation to their social rank. Can. J. Zool. 1987, 65:2594-2601.
38. Ruscoe W A. A comparison of population estimates and abundance indices for house mice inhabiting beech forests in New Zealand. Wildlife Res. 2001, 28:173-178.
39. Sakaluk S K, Belwood J J. Gecko phonotaxis to cricket calling song: a case of satellite predation. Anim. Behav. 1984, 32:659-662.
40. Seppänen J T. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 2007, 88:1622-1633.
41. Sih A. Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 1980, 210:1041-1043.
42. Stoddart D M. Demonstration of olfactory discrimination by the short-tailed vole, Microtus agrestis L. Anim. Behav. 1982, 30:293-294.
43. Stoddart D M, Smith P A. Woodmice (Apodemus sylvaticus) can distinguish conspecific from heterospecific odors in the field. J. Chem. Ecol. 1984, 10:923-928.
44. Stout J C. Repellent scent-marking of flowers by a guild of foraging bumblebees (Bombus spp.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1998, 43:317-326.
45. Viitala J. Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature 1995, 373:425-427.
46. White J A, Whitham T G. Associational susceptibility of cottonwood to a box elder herbivore. Ecology 2000, 81:1795-1803.
47. Windfelder T L. Interspecific communication in mixed-species groups of tamarins: evidence from playback experiments. Anim. Behav. 2001, 61:1193-1201.
48. Wolf J O. Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: a field-laboratory validation. Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15:286-289.
49. Wolf J O, Davis-Born R. Response of gray-tailed voles to odours of a mustelid predator: a field test. Oikos 1997, 79:543-548.
50. Zuk M, Kolluru G R. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q. Rev. Biol. 1998, 73:415-438.