Social organisation of female field voles Microtus agrestis in a population in Southern England

• Autorzy: Loughran M. F. E.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The social organisation of a population ofMicrotus agrestis (Linnaeus, 1761) was studied by live trapping and radiotracking in southern England. Radiotracking revealed significant differences in both female home ranges and core areas with breeding condition. Lactating females had the smallest home ranges and core areas, and pregnant females the largest. There were no significant differences in female home range and core areas during the breeding season or between years despite different densities. Females were only territorial whilst lactating during which time their core areas were small. There were some overlaps of core areas among females at the beginning of the breeding season which are thought to be due to familiarity or kin associations. Associations between females were short-lived, lasting approximately one breeding event. As the breeding season progressed core areas became distinct suggesting a change to a territorial system although densities were low and most females were lactating. Patterns of social organisation among females were similar in both 1995 and 1996. Mean nearest neighbour distances tended to increase as the breeding season progressed and were uncorrelated with density.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 51
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.233-242,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Loughran M. F. E.

• 26 Sauls Bridge Close, Witham, Essex, England, CM8 1XJ

Bibliografia

• Agrell J. 1995. A shift in female social organisation independent of relatedness: an experimental study on the field vole (Microtus agrestis). Behavioural Ecology 6: 182–191.
• Agrell J., Wolff J. O. and Ylönen H. 1998. Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: costs and consequences. Oikos 83: 507–517.
• Alibhai S. K. and Gipps J. H. W. 1991. Field vole. [In: Handbook of British mammals. 3rd edition. G. B. Corbet and S. Harris, eds]. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 203–208.
• Bekoff M. 1981. Vole population cycles: kin selection or familiarity. Oecologia 48: 131.
• Berteaux D., Masseboeuf F., Bonzom J., Bergeron J., Thomas D. W. and Lapierre H. 1996. Effect of carrying a radiocollar on expenditure of energy by meadow voles. Journal of Mammalogy 77: 359–363.
• Burt W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24: 346–352.
• Cooper M. 1991. Diet selection and spatial dynamics in the field voleMicrotus agrestis. PhD thesis, Cardiff, University of Wales: 1–194.
• David-Gray Z. 1995. The application of DNA fingerprinting to the study of mating strategies. PhD thesis, London University, London: 1–251.
• de Mendonça P. G. 1999. Impact of radio-collars on yellownecked mice,Apodemus flavicolis (Mammalia, Rodentia). Mammal Review 29: 129–134.
• Erlinge S., Hoogenboom I., Agrell J., Nelson J. and Sandell M. 1990a. Density-related home range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 597–603.
• Erlinge S., Agrell J., Nelson J. and Sandell M. 1990b. Social organisation and population dynamics inMicrotus agrestis populations. [In: Social systems and population cycles in voles. R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh and G. Bujalska, eds]. Advances in life sciences. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel: 45–58.
• Ferns P. N. 1976. Diet ofMicrotus agrestis populations in South West Britain. Oikos 27: 506–511.
• Fortier G. M. and Tamarin R. H. 1998. Movement of meadow voles in response to food and density manipulations: A test of the food-defence and pup-defence hypotheses. Journal of Mammalogy 79: 337–345.
• Getz L. L., McGuire B., Hofmann J. E., Pizzuto T. and Frase B. 1990. Social organisation and mating system of the prairie vole,Microtus ochrogaster. [In: Social systems and population cycles in voles: R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh and G. Bujalska, eds]. Advances in life sciences. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland: 69–80.
• Hayes L. D., Lin K. Y. and Solomon N. G. 2004. Do female prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) immigrants affect space use of conspecific female residents? American Midland Naturalist 151: 88–92.
• Hrdy S. B. 1979. Infanticide among mammals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology 1: 13–40.
• Kenward R. E. and Hodder K. H. 1995. Ranges V: an analysis system for biological location data. Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, Dorset: 1–75.
• Koskela E., Mappes T. and Ylönen H. 1997. Territorial behaviour and reproductive success of the bank voleClethrionomys glareolus females. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 341–349.
• Koskela E., Juutistenaho P., Mappes T. and Oksanen T. A. 2000. Offspring defence in relation to litter size and age: experiment in the bank voleClethrionomys glareolus. Evolutionary Ecology 14: 99–109.
• Krebs C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd edition. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California: 192.
• Lambin X. and Krebs C. J. 1993. Influence of female relatedness on the demography of Townsend’s vole population in spring. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 536–550.
• Le Boulenge-Nguyen P. Y. and Le Boulenge E. 1986. A new ear-tag for small mammals. Journal of Zoology, London 209: 302–304.
• Lin K. Y., Hayes L. D. and Solomon N. G. 2004. Effects of female immigrants on demography and social organization of prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) populations. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 781–787.
• Loughran M. F. E. 1999. A Study of the demography and social organisation of the field vole,Microtus agrestis, in relation to food resources. PhD thesis, London University: 1–254.
• Madison D. M. and McShea W. J. 1987. Seasonal changes in reproductive tolerance, spacing and social organisation in meadow voles: a microtine model. American Zoologist 27: 899–908.
• Mappes T., Ylönen H. and Viitala J. 1995. Higher reproductive success among kin groups of bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Ecology 76: 1276–1282.
• Myllymäki A. 1977. Intraspecific competition and home range dynamics in the field voleMicrotus agrestis. Oikos 29: 553–569.
• Ostfeld R.S. 1985. Limiting resources and territoriality in microtine rodents. The American Naturalist 126: 1–15.
• Ostfeld R. S. 1986. Territoriality and mating system of Californian voles. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 691–706.
• Ostfeld R. S. 1990. The ecology of territoriality in small mammals. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 5: 411–415.
• Perrin M. R. 1971. Exploratory behaviour as related to trapping results and population estimation in the voleMicrotus agrestis hirtus. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Exeter: 1–316.
• Pusenius J. and Viitala J. 1993a. Demography and regulation of breeding density in the field voleMicrotus agrestis. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 133–142.
• Pusenius J. and Viitala J. 1993b. Varying spacing behaviour of breeding field voles,Microtus agrestis. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 143–152.
• Rooney S. M., Wolfe A. and Hayden T. J. 1998. Autocorrelated data in telemetry studies: time to independence and the problem of behavioural effects. Mammal Review 28: 89–98.
• Samuel M. D., Pierce D. J. and Garton E. O. 1985. Identifying areas of concentrated use within the home range. Journal of Animal Ecology 54: 711–719.
• Stanford W. 1995. The influence of female social behaviour on the population dynamics of the field voleMicrotus agrestis. PhD thesis, London University, London: 1–384.
• Varty N. 1987. A study of range and activity in the short tailed vole (Microtus agrestis) by live trapping and telemetry. PhD thesis, Kings College, London University, London: 1–402.
• Viitala J. 1977. Social organisation in cyclic sub arctic populations of the volesClethrionomys rufocanus andMicrotus agrestis. Annales Zoologici Fennici 14: 53–93.
• White G. C. and Garrott R. A. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radiotracking data. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California: 33–123.
• Wolff J. O. and Cicirello, D. M. 1989. Field evidence for sexual selection and resource competition infanticide in white footed mice. Animal Behaviour 38: 637–642.
• Wolff J. O. 1993. Why are female mammals territorial? Oikos 68: 364–370.
• Wolff J. O. 1997. Population regulation in mammals: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 1–13.
• Worton B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilisation distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70: 164–168.
• Ylönen H. 1990. Phenotypic flexibility in the social organisation ofClethrionomys. [In: Social systems and population cycles in voles. R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh and G. Bujalska, eds]. Advances in life sciences. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel: 203–212.