Behavioural mechanisms of conflict avoidance among shrews

• Autorzy: Rychlik L. , Zwolak R.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Stable co-existence of similar species should be facilitated by mechanisms impairing, besides exploitative, interference competition. We investigated avoidance of intra- and interspecific conflicts in a four-species community of shrews [Sorex minutus Linnaeus, 1766,S. araneus Linnaeus, 1758,Neomys anomalus Cabrera, 1907, andN. fodiens (Pennant, 1771)], using the method of dyadic encounters in a neutral arena. We tested whether the use of passive (habituation, reduction of mobility, increase of inter-individual distance, and stillness) and active (‘to-and-fro’ and ‘keeping distance’ behaviours) forms of conflict avoidance depends on species, size or domination rank. The duration of conflicts was positively correlated with mobility and negatively with inter-individual distance, whereas it was unrelated to time of stillness and the active forms. The repertoire of conflict avoidance mechanisms was not species-specific and the display of these mechanisms depended rather on the size and domination rank of animals participating in a given interaction. In contrast to rodents, shrews did not avoid conflicts by the most passive forms: freeze and stillness reactions. All other forms were used with a higher or lower efficiency by all species. However, consistent with our predictions, large shrews (asN. fodiens) used mainly the passive mechanisms of conflicts avoidance (‘wait-and-see’ strategy), whereas small shrews (asS. minutus) invest proportionally more time in active forms (‘escape’ strategy).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

interference competition; aggression avoidance; Sorex minutus; conflict avoidance; Neomys fodiens; shrew; behavioural mechanism; agonistic behaviour; Sorex araneus; stable coexistence; Neomys anomalus

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2005
• Tom: 50
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.289-308,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Rychlik L.

• Polish Academy of Sciences, Waszkiewicza 1, 17-230 Bialowieza, Poland

autor

Zwolak R.

Bibliografia

• Andéra M. 1993. Distribution of the Miller’s water shrewNeomys anomalus in Czechoslovakia. Folia Musei Rerum Naturalium Bohemiae Occidentalis, Zoologica 37: 1–37.
• Archer J. 1988. The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1–257.
• Bauer D. J. and Gariepy J. L. 2001. The functions of freezing in the social interactions of juvenile high- and low-aggressive mice. Aggressive Behavior 27: 463–475.
• Baxter R. M. and Irwin D. 1995. A laboratory study of agonistic behaviour in the red musk shrew,Crocidura flavescens (Geoffroy I. 1827). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 60: 193–205.
• Bee M. A. and Gerhardt H. C. 2001. Habituation as a mechanism of reduced aggression between neighboring territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Journal of Comparative Psychology 115: 68–82.
• Blanchard R. J. and Blanchard D. C. 1989. Antipredator defensive behaviors in a visible burrow system. Journal of Comparative Psychology 103: 70–82.
• Blanchard D. C., Blanchard R. J. and Rogers R. J. 1991. Risk assessment and animal models of anxiety. [In: Animal models in psychopharmacology. B. Olivier and J. Slangen, eds]. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel: 117–134.
• Blaustein A. R. and Risser A. C. J. 1976. Interspecific interactions between three sympatric species of Kangaroo rats (Dipodomys). Animal Behaviour 24: 381–385.
• Cantoni D., Favre L., Tencalla F., Croset P., Morgenthaler F., Camarda G., Ruchet C., Rivier L. and Vogel P. 1996. Intra- and inter-individual variation in flank gland secretions of free-ranging shrewsCrocidura russula. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22: 1669–1688.
• Churchfield S. 1984. Dietary separation in three species of shrew inhabiting water-cress beds. Journal of Zoology, London 204: 211–228.
• Churchfield S. 1990. The natural history of shrews. Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd., Bromley: 1–178.
• Churchfield S. 1991. Niche dynamics, food resources, and feeding strategies in multispecies communities of shrews. [In: The biology of the Soricidae. J. S. Findley and T. L. Yates, eds]. Special Publication of the Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque: 23–34.
• Churchfield S., Nesterenko V. A. and Shvarts E. A. 1999. Food niche overlap and ecological separation amongst six species of coexisting forest shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae) in the Russian Far East. Journal of Zoology, London 248: 349–359.
• Churchfield S. and Rychlik L. (in press). Dietary overlap and niche partitioning in four shrew species co-existing in marshland in Białowieża Forest, eastern Poland. Journal od Zoology, London.
• Croin Michielsen N. 1966. Intraspecific and interspecific competition in the shrewsSorex araneusL. andS. minutusL. Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie 17: 73–174.
• Crowcroft W. P. 1955. Notes on the behaviour of shrews. Behaviour 8: 63–80.
• Dempster E. R. and Perrin M. R. 1990. Interspecific aggression in sympatricGerbillurusspecies. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 55: 392–398.
• Dickman C. R. 1991. Mechanisms of competition among insectivorous mammals. Oecologia 85: 464–471.
• Dixon A. K. 1998. Ethological strategies for defence in animals and humans: their role in some psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Medical Psychology 71: 417–445.
• 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.
• Eccard J. A. and Ylönen H. 2003. Interspecific competition in small rodents: from populations to individuals. Evolutionary Ecology 17: 423–440.
• Edut S. and Eilam D. 2004. Protean behavior under barn-owl attack: voles alternate between freezing and fleeing and spiny mice flee in alternating patterns. Behavioural Brain Research 155: 207–216.
• Eilam D., Dayan T., Ben-Eliyahu S., Schulman I., Shefer G. and Hendrie C. A. 1999. Differential behavioural and hormonal responses of voles and spiny mice to owl calls. Animal Behaviour 58: 1085–1093.
• Ellenbroek F. J. M. and Hamburger J. 1991. Interspecific interactions between the shrewsSorex araneus L. andS. minutus L. (Soricidae, Insectivora) and the use of habitat — a laboratory study. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 41: 32–61.
• Enquist M. and Leimar O. 1990. The evolution of fatal fighting. Animal Behaviour 39: 1–9.
• Feldhamer G. A., Drickamer L. C., Vessey S. H. and Merritt J. F. 1999. Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, and ecology. WBC/McGraw-Hill, Boston: 1–563.
• Frye R. J. 1983. Experimental field evidence of interspecific aggression between two species of kangaroo rat (Dipodomys). Oecologia 59: 74–78.
• Gliwicz J. and Taylor J. R. E. 2002. Comparing life histories of shrews and rodents. Acta Theriologica 47, Suppl. 1: 185–208.
• Gould E. 1969. Communication in three genera of shrews (Soricidae):Suncus, Blarina andCryptotis. Communications in Behavioral Biology, Part A 3: 11–31.
• Grant P. R. 1970. Experimental studies of competitive interaction in two-species system. II. The behaviour ofMicrotus, Peromyscus andClethrionomys species. Animal Behaviour 18: 411–426.
• Grant P. R. 1972. Interspecific competition among rodents. V. Summary of the evidence for rodent species, and some generalisations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 79–106.
• Hanski I. 1985. What does a shrew do in an energy crisis? [In: Behavioural ecology. Ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. The 25th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, Reading 1984. R. M. Sibly and R. H. Smith, eds]. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 247–252.
• Hanski I. 1994. Population biological consequences of body size inSorex. [In: Advances in the biology of shrews. J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland Jr and R. K. Rose, eds]. Special Publication of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh 18: 15–26.
• Harper S. J. and Batzli G. O. 1997. Are staged dyadic encounters useful for studying aggressive behaviour of arvicoline rodents? Canadian Journal of Zoology 75: 1051–1058.
• Hawes M. L. 1976. Odor as a possible isolating mechanism in sympatric species of shrews (Sorex vagrans andSorex obscurus). Journal of Mammalogy 57: 404–406.
• Hawes M. L. 1977. Home range, territoriality and ecological separation in sympatric shrewsSorex vagrans andSorex obscurus. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 354–367.
• Hendrie C. A. and Starkey N. J. 1998. Pair-bond disruption in Mongolian gerbils: Effects on subsequent social behaviour. Physiology & Behavior 63: 895–901.
• Hendrie C. A., Weiss S. M. and Eilam D. 1998. Behavioral response of wild rodents to the calls of an owl: a comparative study. Journal of Zoology, London 245: 439–446.
• Jędrzejewski W., Rychlik L. and Jędrzejewska B. 1993. Responses of bank voles to odours of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural predator-vole relationships. Oikos 68: 251–257.
• Johannesen E., Brudevoll J., Jenstad M., Korslund L. and Kristoffersen S. 2002. Behavioural dominance of grey-sided voles over bank voles in dyadic encounters. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 43–47.
• Kalinin A. A., Shchipanov N. A. and Demidova T. B. 1998. Behaviour of four species of shrewsSorex isodon, S. araneus, S. caecutiens, andS. minutus (Insectivora, Soricidae) in interspecific contacts. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 77: 838–849. [In Russian with English summary]
• Kirkland G. L. Jr 1985. Small mammal communities in temperate North American forests. Australian Mammalogy 8: 137–144.
• Kirkland G. L. Jr 1991. Competition and coexistence in shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae). [In: The biology of the Soricidae. J. S. Findley and T. L. Yates, eds].Special Publication of the Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque: 15–22.
• Korpimäki E. and Norrdahl K. 1989. Avian and mammalian predators of shrews in Europe: regional differences, between-year and seasonal variation, and mortality due to predation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 26: 389–400.
• Krushinska N. L. and Pucek Z. 1989. Ethological study of sympatric species of European water shrews. Acta Theriologica 34: 269–285.
• Krushinska N. L. and Rychlik L. 1993. Intra- and interspecific antagonistic behaviour in two sympatric species of water shrews:Neomys fodiens andN. anomalus. Journal of Ethology 11: 11–21.
• Krushinska N. L., Rychlik L. and Pucek Z. 1994. Agonistic interactions between resident and immigrant sympatric water shrews:Neomys fodiens andN. anomalus. Acta Theriologica 39: 227–247.
• Langen T. A., Tripet F. and Nonacs P. 2000. The red and the black: habituation and the dear-enemy phenomenon in two desert Pheidole ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48: 285–292.
• Law R., Marrow P. and Dieckman U. 1997. On evolution under asymmetric competition. Evolutionary Ecology 11: 485–501.
• Lumley L. A., Charles R. F., Charles R. C., Hebert M. A., Morton D. M. and Meyerhoff J. L. 2000. Effects of social defeat and of diazepam on behavior in a resident-intruder test in male DBA/2 mice. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 67: 433–447.
• Martin I. G. 1980. An ethogram of captiveBlarina brevicauda. American Midland Naturalist 104: 290–294.
• Maynard Smith J. and Parker G. A. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour 24: 159–175.
• McNab B. K. 1991. The energy expenditure of shrews. [In: The biology of the Soricidae. J. S. Findley and T. L. Yates, eds]. Special Publication of the Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque: 35–45.
• Michalak I. 1982. Reproduction, maternal and social behaviour of Mediterranean water shrew under laboratory conditions. Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 30: 307–310.
• Movchan V. N. and Shibkov A. A. 1981. [On the significance of some acoustic signals in the behaviour of insectivores]. Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta 1981(2): 73–76. [In Russian with English summary]
• Movchan V. N. and Shibkov A. A. 1982. Structural patterns of acoustic signals in shrews (Soricidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 61: 1695–1705. [In Russian with English summary]
• Movchan V. N. and Shibkov A. A. 1987. Recognition by shrews of the intraspecific communicational signals and their synthetised models. Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta Ser. 3, 1: 57–64. [In Russian with English summary]
• Moynihan M. 1998. The social regulation of competition and aggression in animals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington: 1–158.
• Nevo E., Naftali G. and Guttman R. 1975. Aggression patterns and speciation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 72: 3250–3254.
• Olsen R. W. 1969. Agonistic behavior of the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda). Journal of Mammalogy 50: 494–500.
• Platt W. J. 1976. The social organisation and teritoriality of short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) population in old field habitats. Animal Behaviour 24: 305–318.
• Peres R. C. and Leite J. R. 2002. The influence of competitive status (winner/loser) on the behavior of male rats in three models of anxiety. Aggressive Behavior 28: 164–171.
• Perri L. M. and Randall J. A. 1999. Behavioral mechanisms of coexistence in sympatric species of desert rodents,Dipodomys ordii andD-merriami. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 1297–1310.
• Persson L. 1985. Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? The American Naturalist 126: 261–266.
• Poduschka W. 1977. Insectivore communication. [In: How animals communicate. T. A. Seboek, ed]. Indiana University Press, Bloomington: 600–633.
• Randall J. A., Hatch S. M. and Hekkala E. R. 1995. Interspecific variation in anti-predator behavior in sympatric species of kangaroo rat. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 243–250.
• Rodgers R. J. 1997. Animal models of ‘anxiety’: where next? Behavioural Pharmacology 8: 477–496.
• Rychlik L. 1997. Differences in foraging behaviour between water shrews:Neomys anomalus andNeomys fodiens. Acta Theriologica 42: 351–386.
• Rychlik L. 1998. Evolution of social systems in shrews. [In: Evolution of shrews. J. M. Wójcik and M. Wolsan, eds]. Mammal Research Institute, Białowieża: 347–406.
• Rychlik L. 2000. Habitat preferences of four sympatric species of shrews. Acta Theriologica 45, Suppl. 1: 173–190.
• Rychlik L. 2001. Habitat preferences of water shrews and root vole coexisting along a stream in Białowieża Forest. Säugetierkundliche Informationen 5 (25): 99–112.
• Rychlik L. 2005. Overlap of temporal niches among four sympatric species of shrews. Acta Theriologica 50: 175–188.
• 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, Spain, 19–24 July, 1998. S. Reig, ed]. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela: 186.
• Rychlik L. and Jancewicz E. 2002. Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes. Behavioral Ecology 13: 216–223.
• Schoener T. W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. The American Naturalist 122: 240–285.
• Schröpfer R. 1990. The structure of European small mammal communities. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Systematik, Ökologie und Geographie der Tiere 117: 355–367.
• Shchipanov N. A., Kalinin A. A., Oleinichenko V. Yu. and Demidova T. B. 1998. General behavioral characteristics of shrews. Russian Journal of Zoology 2: 300–312.
• Shchipanov N. A. and Oleinichenko V. Yu. 1993. [The bicoloured white-toothed shrew. The behaviour and spatial, ethological and functional structure of a population]. Nauka, Moskva: 1–136. [In Russian]
• Sheftel B. I. and Hanski I. 2002. Species richness, relative abundances and habitat use in local assemblages ofSorex shrews in Eurasian boreal forests. Acta Theriologica 47, Suppl. 1: 69–79.
• Sokal R. R. and Rohlf F. J. 1995. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York: 1–859.
• Taylor J. R. E. 1998. Evolution of energetic strategies in shrews. [In: Evolution of shrews. J. Wójcik M. and M. Wolsan, eds]. Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża: 309–346.
• Vogel P. 1976. Energy consumption of European and African shrews. Acta Theriologica 21: 195–206.
• Wolff J. O. and Dueser R. D. 1986. Noncompetitive coexistence betweenPeromyscus species andClethrionomys gapperi. Canadian Field Naturalist 100: 186–191.
• Young K. A. 2003. Evolution of fighting behavior under asymmetric competition: an experimental test with juvenile salmonids. Behavioral Ecology 14: 127–134.
• Zwolak R. and Rychlik L. 2004. Does the reduction of locomotor activity serve as an aggression avoidance mechanism in shrews (Soricidae)? Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Biology 7(2) http://​www.​ejpau.​media.​pl/​series/​volume7/​issue2/​biology/​art-06.​html.​