Intersexual attraction in natal dispersing root voles Microtus oeconomus

• Autorzy: Gundersen G. , Moe J.A. , Andreassen H.P. , Carlsen R.G. , Gundersen H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

By an enclosure experiment we tested whether natal dispersing root voles Microtus oeconomus (Pallas, 1776) were prevented from colonising already occupied habitat patches or if they were attracted to habitat patches by potential mates. The treatment consisted of manipulating the presence of animals in immigration patches, either with the presence of a solitary sexually mature male or female, whereas empty patches were used as a control. Immigration patches were separated from a patch used for release of a matriline (mother with her newly weaned titter) by a semipermeable fence allowing only interpatch movements of young animals. We predicted that either a social fence would prevent immigration to treatment patches, or that potential mates would attract dispersing individuals. In particular we expected fewer dispersing males to colonise male occupied patches, and fewer dispersing females to colonise female occupied patches due to intrasexual competition, ie an intrasexual social fence. We found that a higher proportion of females settled in male treatment patches than in female patches, whereas male dispersal was unaffected by treatment. Thus, the observed female immigration pattern appeared to be an attraction to patches occupied by the opposite sex We found no sign that immigration was prevented by a social fence.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

intersexual attraction; Microtus oeconomus; vole; population; demographic parameter; root vole

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 1999
• Tom: 44
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.283-290,fig.

Twórcy

autor

Gundersen G.

• University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1050, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

autor

Moe J.A.

autor

Andreassen H.P.

autor

Carlsen R.G.

autor

Gundersen H.

Bibliografia

• Andreassen H. P., Herzberg K. and Ims R A. 1998. Space-use responses to habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the root vole Microtus oeconomus. Ecology 79: 1223-1235.
• Andreassen H. P., Ims R. A. and Steinset O. K. 1996. Discontinuous habitat corridors; effects on male root vole movements. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 555-560.
• Bekoff M. 1977. Mammalian dispersal and the ontogeny of individual phenotypes. The American Naturalist 111: 715-732.
• Berg K. W. 1995. Space use responses of root voles (Microtus oeconomus) to a habitat fragmentation gradient. Cand. Scient. thesis, University of Oslo: 1-51.
• Bollinger E. K., Harper S. J. and Barrett G. W. 1993. Inbreeding avoidance increases dispersal movements of the meadow vole. Ecology 74; 1153-1156.
• Bondrup-Nielsen S. 1993. Early malnutrition increases emigration of adult female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Oikos 63: 317-320.
• Boonstra R., Krebs C. J., Gaines M. S., Johnson M. L. and Craine I. T. M. 1987. Natal philopatry and breeding systems in voles (Microtus spp.J. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 655-673.
• Christian J. J. 1970. Social subordination, population density, and mammalian evoiution. Science 168: 84-90.
• Dingle H. 1972. Migration strategies of insects. Science 175: 1327-1335.
• Dobson F, S. 1982. Competition for mates and predominant juvenile male dispersal in mammals. Animal Behaviour 30: 1183-1192.
• Gundersen G. and Andreassen H. P. 1998. Causes and consequences of natal dispersal in root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Animal Behaviour 56: 1355-1367.
• Hastings A. 1990. Spatial heterogeneity and ecological models. Ecology 71: 421-423.
• Hestbeck J. 1982. Population regulation of cyclic small mammals: the social fence hypothesis. Oikos 39: 157-163.
• Holekamp K. E. and Sherman P. W. 1989. Why male ground squirrels disperse. American Scientist 77: 232-238.
• Ims R. A. 1987. Responses in the spatial organization and behavior to manipulations of the food resource in the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 485-596.
• Ims R. A. 1989. Kinship and origin effects on dispersal and space sharing in Clethrionomys rufocanus. Ecology 70: 607-616.
• Ims R. A. 1990. Determinants of natal dispersal and space use in the gray-sided vole, Clethrionomys rufocanus: a combined laboratory and field experiment. Oikos 57: 106-113.
• Ims R. A., Rolstad J. and Wegge P. 1993. Predicting space use responses to habitat fragmentation: Can voles Microtus oeconomus serve as an experimental model system (EMS) for cappereaillie grouse Tetrao urogallus in boreal forest? Biological Conservation 63: 261-268.
• Ims R. A. and Yoccoz N. G. 1997. Studying transfer processes in metapopulations: Emigration, migration, and colonization. [In: Metapopulation biology: Ecology, genetics, and evolution. I. A. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, eds]. Academic Press, London: 247-265.
• Ims R. A. 1997. Determinants of geographic variation in growth and reproductive traits in the root vole. Ecology 78: 461-470.
• Jacquot J. J. and Vessey S. H. 1995. Influence of the natal environment on dispersal of white-footed mice. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 37: 407-412.
• Krebs C. J. 1978. A review of the Chitty hypothesis of population regulation, Canadian Journal of Zoology 56: 2463-2480.
• Lambin X. 1994. Natal philopatry, competition for resources and inbreeding avoidance in Townsend's votes (Microtus townsendii). Ecology 75: 224-235.
• Lidicker W. Z. 1975. The role of dispersal in the demography of small mammals. Tin: Small Mammals: Their productivity and population dynamics. F. B. Golley, K. Petrusewicz and L. Ryszkowski, eds]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 103-128.
• Lidicker W. Z. 1985. Dispersal. The American Society of Mammalogists, Special publication 8: 420- 454,
• McGuire B., Getz L. L., Hoffman J. E., Pizzuto T. and Frase B. 1993. Natal dispersal and philopatry in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in relation to population density, season, and natat environment. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 32: 293-302.
• McShea W. J. 1990. Social tolerance and proximate mechanisms of dispersal among winter groups of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Animal Behaviour 39: 3436-351.
• Pusey A. E. 1987. Sex-biased dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in birds and mammals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2: 295-299.
• Reed J. M. and Dobson A. P. 1993. Behavioral constraints and conservation biology: conspecific attraction and recruitment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 253-256.
• Santos E. M. dos, Andreassen H. P. and Ims R. A. 1995. Differential inbreeding tolerance in two geographically distinct strains of root voles Microtus oeconomus. Ecography 18: 238-247.
• Smith A. T. and Peacock M. M. 1990. Conspecific attraction and the determination of metapopulation colonisation rates. Conservation Biology 4: 320-323.
• Stamps J. A. 1988. Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. The American Naturalist 131: 329-347.
• Stenseth N. C. 1983. Causes and consequences of dispersal in small mammals. [In: The ecology of animal movement. I. R. Swingland and P. J. Greenwood, eds]. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 63-101.
• Stenseth N. C. and Lidicker W. Z, 1992, Animal dispersal: Small mammals as a model. Chapman and Hall, London: 1-365.
• Wolff J. O. 1992. Parents suppress reproduction and stimulate dispersal in opposite-sex juvenile white-footed mice. Nature 359: 409-410.
• Wolff J. O. 1993. What is the role of adults in mammalian juvenile dispersal? Oikos 68: 173-176.
• Wolff J. O. 1994. More on juvenile dispersal in mammals. Oikos 71: 349-352.