Density-dependent variation in body mass of voles

• Autorzy: Johannesen E. , Andreassen H.P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We studied inter-annual, spatial and sexual variation in the body mass of bank volesMyodes glareolus Schreber, 1780 and grey-sided volesMyodes rufocanus Sundevall, 1846 using live trappings from two grids on the southand north-facing slopes of a mountain valley in Southern Norway. Variation in spring density of the four populations was consistent with cyclic dynamics (n=7,s-values >0.5). Individuals caught on the south-facing slope were larger than those caught on the north-facing slope. Reproductively mature bank vole males were smaller than females, whereas reproductively mature grey-sided vole males were larger than females. Body mass was related to density in both species. In bank voles, we found a direct positive density dependence caused by a higher rate of survival at higher densities resulting from individual allocation of resources from reproduction to survival and growth. In grey-sided voles, we found a negative delayed density dependence resulting from grazing on preferred plants that determined the resource available for individual vole growth the following year.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Clethrionomys; bank vole; Myodes rufocanus; rodent; Myodes glareolus; Myodes; reproduction; body mass; vole; density; sexual dimorphism; grey-sided vole

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: 53
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.169-173,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Johannesen E.

• Institute of Marine Research, P.O.Box 1870 Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway

autor

Andreassen H.P.

Bibliografia

• Bondrup-Nielsen S. and Ims R. A. 1990. Reversed sexual dimorphism in microtines: are females larger than males or are males smaller than females? Evolutionary Ecology 4: 261–272.
• Boonstra R. and Krebs C. J. 1979. Viability of large and small sized adults in fluctuation vole populations. Ecology 60: 567–573.
• Chitty D. 1967. The natural selection of self-regulatory behaviour in animal populations. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 2: 51–78.
• Ergon T., Lambin X. and Stenseth N. C. 2001a. Life-history traits of voles in a fluctuating population respond to the immediate environment. Nature 411: 1043–1045.
• Ergon T., MacKinnon J. L., Stenseth N. C., Boonstra R. and Lambin X. 2001b. Mechanisms for delayed density-dependent reproductive traits in field voles,Microtus agrestis: the importance of inherited environmental effects. Oikos 95: 185–197.
• Ergon T., Speakman J. R., Scantlebury M., Cavanagh R. and Lambin X. 2004. Optimal body size and energy expenditure during winter: Why are voles smaller in declining populations? The American Naturalist 163: 442–457.
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E. and McGuire B. 2007. Vole population dynamics: factors affecting peak densities and amplitudes of annual population fluctuations ofMicrotus pennsylvanicus. Acta Theriologica 52: 159–170.
• Hansson L. 1985.Clethriomomys food: generic, specific and regional characteristics. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22: 315–318.
• Henttonen H., McGuire A. D. and Hansson L. 1985. Comparisons of amplitude and frequencies (spectral analysis) of density variations in long-term data-sets ofClethrionomys species. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22: 221–228.
• Johannesen E. 2003. Intra- and interspecific density dependence in the survival and recruitment of grey-sided (Clethrionomys rufocanus) and bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Annales Zoologici Fennici 40: 35–44.
• Johannesen E. and Mauritzen M. 1999. Habitat selection of grey-sided voles and bank voles in two sub-alpine populations in southern Norway. Annales Zoologici Fennici 36: 215–222.
• Kaneko Y., Nakata K., Saitoh T., Stenseth N. C. and Bjørnstad O. N. 1998. The biology of the voleClethrionomys rufocanus: a review. Researches in Population Ecology 40: 21–37.
• Lidicker W. Z. and Ostfeld R. S. 1991. Extra-large body size in California voles: causes and fitness consequences. Oikos 61: 108–121.
• Løfgren O. 1995. Niche expansion and increased maturation rate ofClethrionomys glareolus in the absence of competitors. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 1100–1112.
• Norrdahl K. and Korpimäki E. 2002. Changes in individual quality during a 3-year population cycle of voles. Oecologia 130: 239–249.
• Oli M. K. 1999. The Chitty effect: A consequence of dynamic energy allocation in a fluctuating environment. Theoretical Population Biology 56: 293–300.
• Oli M. K. and Dobson F. S. 1999. Population cycles in small mammals: the role of age at sexual maturity. Oikos 86: 557–565.
• Pollock K. H., Nichols J. D., Brownie C. and Hines J. E. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107: 1–97.
• SAS version 9.1 2002–2003. SAS for windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
• Steen H., Ims R. A. and Sonerud G. A. 1996. Spatial and temporal patterns of small-rodent population dynamics at a regional scale. Ecology 77: 2365–2372.
• Stenseth N. C. 1981. On Chitty’s theory for fluctuating populations: the importance of genetic polymorphism in the generation of regular cycles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 90: 9–39.
• Sundell J. and Norrdahl K. 2002. Body-size dependent refuges in voles: an alternative explanation of the Chitty effect. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 325–333.
• Wilson D. E. and Reeder D. M. (eds) 2005. Mammal species of the world; a taxonomic and geographic reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1–2000.
• Yoccoz N. and Mesnager S. 1998. Are alpine bank voles larger and more sexually dimorphic because adults survive better? Oikos 82: 85–98.