Landscape Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 279–288 | Cite as

Effect of landscape structure on Common Vole (Microtus arvalis) distribution and abundance at several space scales

  • P. Delattre
  • P. Giraudoux
  • J. Baudry
  • J. P. Quéré
  • E. Fichet


This paper aims to answer the following question: are the fluctuations of abundance of Common Vole (Microtus arvalis) specific to different types of landscapes? The research was carried out in landscapes where grassland was dominant. The sampling method was based upon a partition in both landscape types and landscape units. Tracking of vole indices was used to evaluate their relative abundance. Six landscape transects were sampled during two successive years. Results show that population variation and diffusion of demographic states are closely related to landscape types. The possible causes of this are discussed. The landscape units can be used as global variables to assess outbreak risk and landscape design can be used to prevent them.


landscape structure fluctuation population dynamics Microtus arvalis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, M. and Erlinge, S. 1977. Influence of predation on rodent populations. Oikos 29(3): 591–597.Google Scholar
  2. Apeldoorn, R.C., Oostenbrink, W.T., Van Winden, A. and Zee, F.F. 1992. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the Bank Vole.Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural landscape. Oikos 65: 265–274.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, R.E.J., Heft, A.A. and Baummer, T.E. 1990. Spatial relationships of syntopic White-footed Mice,Peromyscus leucopus. Deer Mice,P. maniculatus, and Red-backed Voles.Clethrionomys gapperi. Canadian Field Naturalist 104(3): 387–393.Google Scholar
  4. Baudry, J. 1989. Interactions between agricultural and ecological systems at the landscape level. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 27: 119–130.Google Scholar
  5. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Damange, J.P. and Quere, J.P. 1990. Recherche d'un indicateur de la cinétique démographique des populations du Campagnol des champs (Microtus arvalis). Revue Ecologie (Terre et Vie) 45: 375–384.Google Scholar
  6. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Baudry, J., Musard, P., Toussaint, M., Truchetet, D., Stahl, P., Poule, M.L., Artois, M., Damange, J.P. and Quere, J.P. 1992. Land use patterns and types of Common Vole (Micmtus arvalis) population kinetics. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 39: 153–169.Google Scholar
  7. Douglass, R.J., Douglass, K.S. and Rossi, L. 1992. Ecological distribution of Bank Voles and Wood Mice in disturbed habitats: preliminary results. Acta Theriologica 37(4): 359–370.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, W.R. and Clark, W.R. 1988. Ecological dependency: the concept and its implications for research and management. Trans. 53 rd N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. SS2: 115–125.Google Scholar
  9. Erlinge, S., Goransson, G., Hogstedt, G., Liberg, O., Loman, J., Nillson, I., Nillson, T., Von Schantz, T. and Sylven, M. 1983. Predation as a regulating factor on small rodent populations in southern Sweden. Oikos 40(1): 36–52.Google Scholar
  10. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66(6): 1762–1768.Google Scholar
  11. Finerty, J.P. (Ed.) 1980. The population ecology of cycles in small mammals. Yale University Press. New Haven & London. 234 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. (Eds.) 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 619 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Gaines, M.S., Foster, J., Diffendorfer, J.E., Sera, W.E., Holt, R.D. and Robinson, G.R. 1992. Population processes and biological diversity. Trans. 57th N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 252–262.Google Scholar
  14. Geuse, P. and Bauchau, V. 1985.Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia: Muridae) etClethrionomys glareolus (Rodentia: Microtidae): compétition ou coexistence? Annales de la Société de Zoologie Belge 115(2): 211–220.Google Scholar
  15. Giraudoux, P. 1991. Utilisation de l'espace par les hÔtes du ténia multiloculaire (Echinococcus multilocularis: conséquences épidémiologiques. Thèse de Doctorat. Dijon, 106 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Giraudoux, P., Michelat, D. and Habert, M. 1990. La Chouette effraie (Tyto alba) est-elle un bon modèle d'étude en dynamique de population? Alauda 58(1): 17–20.Google Scholar
  17. Giraudoux, P., Delattre, P., Quere, J.P. and Damange, J.P. 1994. Distribution and kinetics of rodent populations in a region under agricultural land abandonment. Acta Ecologia 15(4): 385–400.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski, I. 1987. Populations of small mammals cycle — Unless they don't. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2(3): 55–57.Google Scholar
  19. Hanski, I., Hansson, L. and Henttonen, H. 1987. Specialist predators, generalist predators, and the microtine rodent cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 353–367.Google Scholar
  20. HeikkilÄ, J., Below, A. and Hanski, I. 1994. Synchronous dynamics of microtine rodent populations on islands in Lake Inari in northern Fennoscandia: evidence for regulation by mustelid predators. Oikos 70: 245–252.Google Scholar
  21. Henttonen, H., Oksanen, T., Jortikka, H. and Haukisalmi, V. 1987. How much do weasels shape microtine cycles in northern Fennoscandia taiga? Oikos 50: 353–365.Google Scholar
  22. Hansson, L. 1988. The domestic cat as a possible modifier of vole dynamics. Mammalia 52(2): 159–164.Google Scholar
  23. Hansson, L. 1989. Predation in heterogeneous landscapes: how to evaluate total impact? Oikos 54(1): 117–119.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, A.R., Wiens, J.A., Milne, B.T. and Crist, T.O. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecology 7(1): 63–75.Google Scholar
  25. Kozakiewicz, M. 1993. Habitat isolation and ecological barriers. The effect on small mammal populations and communities. Acta Theriologica 38(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
  26. Krebs, C.J. and Myers, J.H. 1974. Population cycles in small mammals. Advances in Ecological Research 8: 267–399.Google Scholar
  27. Lidicker, W.Z.J. 1985. Population structuring as a factor in understanding microtine cycles. Acta Zoologica Fennica 173:23–27.Google Scholar
  28. Lidicker, W.Z.J. 1988. Solving the enigma of microtine ‘cycles’. Journal of Mammalogy 69(2): 225–235.Google Scholar
  29. Lidicker, W.Z.J., Wolff, J.O., Lidicker, L.N. and Smith, M.H. 1992. Utilization of a habitat mosaic by cotton rats during a population decline. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 259–268.Google Scholar
  30. Loman, J. 1991. Small mammal and raptor densities in habitat islands: area effect in a south Swedish agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 5(3): 183–189.Google Scholar
  31. Merriam, G. 1990. Ecological processes in the time and space of farmland mosaics.In Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective, pp. 121–133. Edited by I.S. Zonneweld and T.T. Forman. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, R.K. and Birney, E.C. 1985. Community ecology.In Biology of New World Microtus. Special Publication Nℴ 8. pp. 310–339. Edited by R.H. Tamarin. The American Society of Mammalogists. Shippensburg. Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  33. Szacki, J., Babinska-Werka, J. and Liro, A. 1993. The influence of landscape spatial structure on small mammal movements. Acta Theriologica 38(2): 113–123.Google Scholar
  34. Teivainen, T. 1979. Vole damage to forest tree seedlings in reforested areas and fields in Finland in the years 1973–1976. Folia Forestalia 387: 23 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Thioulouse, J. 1989. Statistical analysis and graphical display of multivariate data on the Macintosh. Computer Applications in the Biosciences 5: 287–293.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Delattre
    • 1
  • P. Giraudoux
    • 2
  • J. Baudry
    • 3
  • J. P. Quéré
    • 1
  • E. Fichet
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecoéthologie, CC64Université Montpellier IIMontpellier cedex 05France
  2. 2.EcologieUniversité de BourgogneDijon cedexFrance
  3. 3.INRA-SADRennes cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations