Skip to main content
Log in

Changes in foraging behavior of two species of field mice,Apodemus speciosus Temminck andA. argenteus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae), in the response to artificial illumination

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Forest Research

Abstract

Predation hazard is one of the most important factors that affect foraging behavior. Light intensity is an indirect measure of a predation hazard for nocturnal rodents. In 1988 and 1989, I conducted laboratory experiments to reveal the effects of the predation hazard on foraging behavior of two species of field mice,Apodemus speciosus Temminck andA. argenteus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae), which co-exist in many areas in Japan. I released a mouse into the experimental arena, where I set one nest box and two food stations (one near and the other far from the nest box), and recorded the foraging behavior for sixA. speciosus and sixA. argenteus mice. I planned to illuminate the experimental arena when the mouse left the nest box to mimic a predation hazard during excursion. The light treatment decreased the time the mouse spend outside the nest box, the duration of an excursion, the number of visits to the food station far from the nest box, and the number of peanuts handled at the food station far away. Mice handled food more intensely at the food station near to the nest box and tended to carry more foods back to the nest box and eat them there during the light treatment period than the control period. These behavioral changes, which seemed to be adaptive to avoid the predation hazard in the field, were more apparent in smaller mice,A. argenteus, than larger mice,A. speciosus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Brown, J.S., Kotler, B.P., Smith, J.R., and Wirtz II, W.O. (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76: 408–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B.K. and Kaufman, D.W. (1991) Effects of plant litter on foraging and nesting behavior of prairie rodents. J. Mammal. 72: 502–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J.A. (1983) Moonlight’s influence on predator/prey interactions between short-eared owls (Asio flamineus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13: 205–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., Wilson, M.I., Behrends, P.R., and Jacobs, L.F. (1992) Characteristics of kangaroo rats,Dipodomys merriani, associated with different predation risk. Anim. Behav. 40: 380–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doi, T. and Iwamoto, T. (1982) Local distribution of two species ofApodemus in Kyushu. Res. Popul. Ecol. 24: 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, B.P. (1984a) Harvesting rates and predatory risk in desert rodents: A comparison of two communities on different continents. J. Mammal. 65: 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, B.P. (1984b) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65: 689–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, B.P., Brown, J.S., and Hasson, O. (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rate of owl predation. Ecology 72: 2249–2260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, B.P., Brown, J.S., Smith, J.R., and Wirtz II, W.O. (1988) The effects of morphology and body size on rates of owl predation on desert rodents. Oikos 53: 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima, S.L. and Dill, L.M. (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospects. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longland, W.S. and Price, M.V. (1991) Direct observations of owls and heteromyid rodents: Can predation risk explain microhabitat use? Ecology 72: 2261–2273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J.A. and Caraco, T. (1987) Foraging, predation hazard and patch use in grey squirrels. Anim. Behav. 35: 1804–1813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J.A., Recer, G.M., Zwicker, S.M., and Caraco, T. (1988) Effects of predation hazard on foraging “constraints”: Patch-use strategies in grey squirrels. Oikos 53: 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, K. and Abe, M. (1988) Prey susceptibilities, prey utilization and variable attack efficiencies of Ural owls. Oecologia 77: 414–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelon, J.P. and Baker, R.H. (1992) Optimal foraging inPeromyscus polinotus: The influence of item-size and predation risk. Behaviour 121: 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shioya, K., Shiraishi, S., and Uchida, T. (1990) Microhabitat segregation betweenApodemus argenteus andA. speciosus in northern Kyushu. J. Mammal. Soc. Jpn. 14: 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichi Sone.

About this article

Cite this article

Sone, K. Changes in foraging behavior of two species of field mice,Apodemus speciosus Temminck andA. argenteus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae), in the response to artificial illumination. J For Res 7, 17–21 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02762594

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02762594

Key words

Navigation