Effects of conspecific and heterospecific residents on patterns of immigration in two species of voles

• Autorzy: McGuire B. , Oli M.K. , Getz L.L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Studies with birds have shown that presence and density of resident conspecifics and heterospecifics can influence patterns of habitat selection. There have been few studies on the effects of social cues on rates of immigration in mammals. We report results from a long-term live trapping study of immigration in two species of voles, Microtus ochrogaster Wagner, 1842 and Microtus pennsylvanicus Ord, 1815, in bluegrass habitat in east-central Illinois, USA. We compare immigration into control sites from which no individuals of either species were removed with immigration into experimental sites from which either conspecifics or heterospecifics were removed. We focus on characteristics of immigrants and rates of immigration in relation to density in destination habitats. Within each species, immigrants into control and removal sites were similar with respect to body mass and reproductive condition, indicating no major differences in the physical condition of immigrants into sites with established populations and sites without established populations. For both species, density of conspecifics at a site positively influenced rate of immigration at that site. Density of heterospecifics at destination sites did not significantly influence rate of immigration for either species. These results suggest that site selection by dispersing M. ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus is characterized by conspecific attraction.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 54
• Numer: 4
• Strony: 321-332
• Opis fizyczny: p.321-332,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

McGuire B.

• Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

autor

Oli M.K.

autor

Getz L.L.

Bibliografia

• Baird D. D. and Birney E. C. 1982. Characteristics of dispersing meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus. American Midland Naturalist 107: 262–283.
• Burt W. H. 1940. Territorial behavior and populations of some small mammals in southern Michigan. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 45: 1–58.
• Danielson B. J. and Gaines M. S. 1987. The influences of conspecific and heterospecific residents on colonization. Ecology 68: 1778–1784. DOI: 10.2307/1939869
• Danielson B. J., Johnson M. L. and Gaines M. S. 1986. An analysis of a method for comparing residents and colonists in a natural population of Microtus ochrogaster. Journal of Mammalogy 67: 733–736.
• Desy E. A. and Batzli G. O. 1989. Effects of food availability and predation on prairie vole demography: a field experiment. Ecology 70: 411–421. DOI: 10.2307/1937546
• Diffendorfer J. E. S., Gaines M. S. and Holt R. D. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus and Peromyscus). Ecology 76: 827–839. DOI: 10.2307/1939348
• Dueser R. D., Wilson M. L. and Rose R. K. 1981. Attributes of dispersing meadow voles in open-grid populations. Acta Theriologica 26: 139–162.
• Fletcher R. J. 2007. Species interactions and population density mediate the use of social cues for habitat selection. Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 598–606. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01230.x
• Gaines M. S., Vivas A. M. and Baker C. L. 1979. An experimental analysis of dispersal in fluctuating vole populations: demographic parameters. Ecology 60: 814–828. DOI: 10.2307/1936617
• Gannon W. L., Sikes R. S. and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. 2007. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild animals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 809–823. DOI: 10.1644/06-MAMM-F-185R1.1
• Getz L. L., Cole F. R., Verner L., Hofmann J. E. and Avalos D. 1979. Comparisons of population demography of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus. Acta Theriologica 24: 319–349.
• Getz L. L., Hofmann J. E., Klatt B. J., Verner L., Cole F. R. and Lindroth R. L. 1987. Fourteen years of population fluctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in east central Illinois. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 1317–1325. DOI: 1987: 10.1139/z87-208
• Getz L. L., Hofmann J. E., McGuire B. and Dolan, T. W. III. 2001. Twenty-five years of population fluctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in three habitats in east-central Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 22–34. DOI: 10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082<0022: TFYOPF>2.0.CO;2
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E. and McGuire B. 2005. The influence of immigration on demography of sympatric voles. Acta Theriologica 50: 323–342.
• Haken A. E. and Batzli G. O. 1996. Effects of food and interspecific competition on diets of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Journal of Mammalogy 77: 315–324.
• Hasler J. F. 1975. A review of reproduction and sexual maturation in the microtine rodents. The Biologist 57: 52–86.
• Klatt B. J. and Getz L. L. 1987. Vegetation characteristics of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus habitats in east-central Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy 68: 569–577.
• Lambin X. 1994. Natal philopatry, competition for resources, and inbreeding avoidance in Townsend’s voles (Microtus townsendii). Ecology 75: 224–235. DOI: 10.2307/1939396
• Lin Y. K. and Batzli G. O. 2001a. The effect of interspecific competition on habitat selection by voles: an experimental approach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 110–120. DOI: 10.1139/cjz-79-1-110
• Lin Y. K. and Batzli G. O. 2001b. The influence of habitat quality on dispersal, demography, and population dynamics of voles. Ecological Monographs 71: 245–275. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071[0245:TIOHQO]2.0.CO;2)
• Lindroth R. L. and Batzli G. O. 1984. Food habits of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in bluegrass and prairie habitats. Journal of Mammalogy 65: 600–606.
• Linklater W. L. and Swaisgood R. R. 2008. Reserve size, conspecific density, and translocation success for black rhinoceros. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 1059–1068. DOI: 10.2193/2007-398
• Meserve P. L. and Klatt B. J. 1985. Evidence for noncycling populations and the importance of immigration in voles inhabiting an Illinois tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist 113: 255–270.
• Pugh S. R. and Tamarin R. H. 1991. A comparison of population characteristics and reproductive success of resident and immigrant meadow voles. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 2638–2643. DOI: 10.1139/z91-371
• Reed A. W. and Slade N. A. 2008. Density-dependent recruitment in grassland small mammals. Journal of Animal Ecology 77: 57–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01327.x
• Schweizer M., Excoffier L. and Heckel G. 2007. Fine-scale genetic structure and dispersal in the common vole (Microtus arvalis). Molecular Ecology 16: 2463–2473. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03284.x
• Seamon J. and Adler G. 1997. Factors affecting immigration of adults: experimental and theoretical observations with rodents. Acta Oecologica 18: 637–655. DOI: 10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80048-3
• Smith J. E. and Batzli G. O. 2006. Dispersal and mortality of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in fragmented landscapes: a field experiment. Oikos 112: 209–217. DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.13431.x
• Stamps J. A. 2001. Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. [In: Dispersal. J. Clobert, E. Danchin, A. A. Dhondt and J. D. Nichols, eds]. Oxford University Press, New York: 230–242.
• Thomson R. L., Forsman J. T. and Mönkkönen M. 2003. Positive interactions between migrant and resident birds: testing the heterospecific attraction hypothesis. Oecologia 134: 431–438. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-002-1140-0.
• Viitala J., Hakkarainen H. and Ylönen H. 1994. Different dispersal in Clethrionomys and Microtus. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 411–415.