Oecologia

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 133–139

Assessment of space-use patterns in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)

  • Guy N. Cameron
  • Stephen R. Spencer
Original Papers

Summary

Ecological interpretation of space use patterns often suffers from two methodological problems: inadequate number of captures per individual and pooling of data over time intervals. Insufficient sample size biases the computation of spatial areas, while pooling data over time intervals may mask shifts in space use due to changes in resource abundance. Radiotelemetry was used to alleviate these problems in an analysis of space use by the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Home range area was greater for males than females, was largest during summer and winter months, was positively correlated with body hass, and was negatively correlated with population dencity. Exclusivity of home range revealed a high degree of ntolerance (41% exclusivity) and was positively correlated with body mass for males. In addition, like-sex categories (male-male, female-female) were more exclusive than unlike sex categories (male-female).

Habitat composition of home ranges of females was significantly different from that of males and from that available. This result suggested home ranges of females were responsive to habitat composition (and quality), while males may respond more to female occurrence than resource availability.

Space-use patterns of the hispid cotton rat indicated a solitary existence with greater tolerance of individuals of the opposite sex. Home range size decreased as population size increased, whereas home range overlaps were not affected by population density. These results reinforced the view of a dominance hierarchy in this species and suggested the existence of a polygynous mating system.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramsky Z, Tracy CR (1980) Relation between home range size and regulation of population size in Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos 34:347–355Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DJ (1982) The home range: a new nonparametric estimation technique. Ecology 63:103–112Google Scholar
  3. Banks EM, Brooks RJ, Schnell J (1975) A radio-tracking study of home range and activity of the brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus). J Mammal 56:888–901Google Scholar
  4. Bateman AJ (1948) Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368Google Scholar
  5. Blair WF (1942) Size of home range and notes on the life history of the woodland deer mouse and eastern chipmunk in northern Michigan. J Mammal 23:27–36Google Scholar
  6. Brooks RJ, Banks EM (1971) Radiotracking study of lemming home range. Comm Behav Biol 6:1–5Google Scholar
  7. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352Google Scholar
  8. Cameron GN (1977) Experimental species removal: demographic responses by Sigmodon hispidus and Reithrodontomys fulvescens. J Mammal 58:488–506Google Scholar
  9. Cameron GN, Kincaid WB, Carnes BA (1977) Experimental species removal: temporal activity patterns of Sigmodon hispidus and Reithrodontomys fulvescens. J Mammal 60:195–197Google Scholar
  10. Damuth J (1981) Home range, home range overlap, and species energy use among herbivorous mammals. Biol J Lin Soc 15:185–193Google Scholar
  11. Dunn JE, Gipson PS (1977) Analysis of radio telemetry data in studies of home range. Biometrics 33:85–101Google Scholar
  12. Fleharty ED, Mares MA (1973) Habitat preference and spatial relations of Sigmodon hispidus on a remnant prairie in westcentral Kansas. Southwest Nat 18:21–29Google Scholar
  13. Forsyth DJ, Smith DA (1973) Temporal variability in home ranges of eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) in a southeastern Ontario woodlot. Am Midl Nat 90:107–117Google Scholar
  14. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36Google Scholar
  15. Gaines MS, Johnson ML (1982) Home range size and population dynamics in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos 39:63–70Google Scholar
  16. Goertz JW (1964) The influence of habitat quality upon density of cotton rat populations. Ecol Monogr 34:358–381Google Scholar
  17. Harestad AS, Bunnell FL (1979) Home range and body weight —a reevaluation. Ecology 60:389–402Google Scholar
  18. Horn JB (1974) Aggression as a component of relative fitness in four inbred strains of mice. Behav Genet 4:373–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Huck UW, Banks EM (1982a) Male dominance status, female choice and mating success in the brown lemming, Lemmus trimucronatus. Anim Behav 30:665–675Google Scholar
  20. Huck UW, Banks EM (1982b) Differential attraction of females to dominant males: olfactory discrimination and mating preference in the brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huck UW, Banks EM, Wang SC (1981) Olfactory discrimination of social status in the brown lemming.Behav Neural Biol 33:364–371Google Scholar
  22. Jannett FJ Jr (1978) The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanus nanus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins SH (1981) Common patterns in home range-body size relationships of birds and mammals. Amer Nat 118:126–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joule J, Cameron GN (1974) Field estimation of demographic parameters: influence of Sigmodon hispidus population structure. J Mammal 55:309–318Google Scholar
  25. Jones EN, Sherman LJ (1983) A comparison of meadow vole home ranges derived from grid trapping and radiotelemetry. J Wild Mgmt 47:558–561Google Scholar
  26. Kincaid WB, Cameron GN (in press) Interactions of hispid cotton rats with a patchy environment: dietary responses and habitat selection. EcologyGoogle Scholar
  27. Kincaid WB, Cameron GN, Carnes BA (1983) Patterns of habitat utilization in sympatric rodents on the Texas coastal prairie. Ecology 64:1471–1480Google Scholar
  28. Layne JN (1974) Ecology of small mammals in a flatwoods habitat in north-central Florida, with emphasis on the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Amer Mus Nov 2544:1–48Google Scholar
  29. Lotze JH (1979) The raccoon (Procyon lotor) on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. 4. Comparisons of home ranges determined by livetrapping and radiotracking. Amer Mus Nov 2664:1–25Google Scholar
  30. Madison DM (1980) Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mares MA, Watson MD, Lacher TE Jr (1976) Home range perturbations in Tamias striatus. Oecologia 25:1–12Google Scholar
  32. Mares MA, Willig MR, Bitar NA (1980) Home range size in eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus, as a function of number of captures: statistical biases of inadequate sampling. J Mammal 61:661–669Google Scholar
  33. Mares MA, Lacher TE Jr, Willig MR, Bitar NA, Adams R, Klinger A, Tazik D (1982) An experimental analysis of social spacing in Tamias striatus. Ecology 63:267–273Google Scholar
  34. Mace GM, Harvey PH (1983) Energetic constraints on home range size. Amer Nat 121:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maza BG, French NR, Aschwanden AP (1973) Home range dynamics in a population of heteromyid rodents. J Mammal 54:405–425Google Scholar
  36. McNab BK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Amer Nat 97:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nie NH, Hull CH, Jenkins JG, Steinbrenner K, Bent DH (1975) SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards L (1980) A test of Bateman's hypothesis in terms of male and female time division strategies. Unpubl. MS thesis, Kansas State Univ, Manhattan, 41 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanderson GC (1966) The study of mammal movement-a review. J Wild Mgmt 30:215–235Google Scholar
  40. Schoener TW (1981) An empirically based estimate of home range. Theor Pop Biol 20:281–325Google Scholar
  41. Schoener TW, Schoener A (1982) Intraspecific variation in homerange size in some Anolis lizards. Ecology 63:809–823Google Scholar
  42. Schroder GD (1979) Foraging behavior and home range utilization of the bannertail kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spectabilis). Ecology 60:657–665Google Scholar
  43. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Slade NA, Swihart RK (1983) Home range indices for the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in northeastern Kansas. J Mammal 64:580–590Google Scholar
  45. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. 2nd ed. WH Freeman. San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  46. Southwood TRE (1978) Ecological method with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Second edition. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Spencer SR, Cameron GN (1983) Behavioral dominance and its relationship to habitat patch utilization by the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Summerlin CT, Wolfe JL (1973) Social influences on trap response of the cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus. Ecology 54:1156–1159Google Scholar
  49. Webster AB, Brooks RJ (1981) Social behavior of Microtus pennsylvanicus in relation to seasonal changes in demography. J Mammal 62:738–751Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy N. Cameron
    • 1
  • Stephen R. Spencer
    • 1
  1. 1.Program in Evolutionary Biology, Department of BiologyUniversity of HousonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations