Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Habitat selection and home range size of field volesMicrotus agrestis in Słowiński National Park, Poland

  • 115 Accesses

  • 16 Citations


Habitat preference, home range size and intra-specific overlap were investigated in summer 1998 among field volesMicrotus agrestis (Linnaeus, 1761) in Słowiński National Park (N Poland). Eight individuals (2 females, 6 males) were radio-tracked for one week in August. Field voles were shown to exhibit a marked preference for meadow and the ecotone between grassland and habitats with common reed, while avoiding alder forest and proper reedbeds. No significant differences between night and day in habitat-use of voles were noted. The results suggest that, at the end of the breeding season, it was food resources, rather than the risk of predation, played an important role in the voles’ utilisation of space. The home ranges of males were larger and more diverse than those of females; their sizes being correlated with body mass, such that heavier males had larger home ranges. This further suggests that intra-sexual competition exists between males for females. The low number of females influenced their spatial behaviour, as females had completely exclusive home ranges. Four males (out of six) had overlapping home ranges with other males; three of the overlaps were of less than 20%. Attributes of promiscuity (such as a 3.5:1 operational sex ratio of males to females, intra-sexual competition between males and the territorial exclusivity of females) influenced the social system. However, the period of radio-tracking during this study was too short to define accurately the social system in the field vole population.

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


  1. Agrell J. 1995. A shift in female social organization independent of relatedness: an experimental study on the field vole (Microtus agrestis). Behavioral Ecology 6: 182–191.

  2. Anderson P. K. 1986. Foraging range in mice and voles: the role of risk. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 2645–2653.

  3. Borowski Z. and Owadowska E. 2001. Spatial response of the field (Microtus agrestis) and bank (Clethrionomys glareolus) voles to weasel (Mustela nivalis) odour in natural habitat. [In: Chemical signals in vertebrates. Vol. 9. A. Marchlewska-Koj, J. Lepri and D. Muller-Schwarze, eds]. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York: 289–293.

  4. Bujalska G. 1973. The role of spacing behaviour among females in the regulation of the reproduction in the bank vole. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility (Supplement) 19: 463–472.

  5. Charnov E. L. and Finerty J. P. 1980. Vole population cycles: case for kin-selection? Oecologia 45: 1–2.

  6. Erlinge S., Hoogenboom J., Agrell J., Nelson J. and Sandell M. 1990. Density-related home range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 597–603.

  7. Godfrey G. K. 1954. Tracing field voles (Microtus agrestis) with a Geiger-Müller counter. Ecology 35: 5–10.

  8. Halle S. 1993. Diel pattern of predation risk in microtine rodents. Oikos 68: 510–518.

  9. Hansson L. 1977. Spatial dynamics of field volesMicrotus agrestis in heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 29: 539–544.

  10. Heroldova M. 1992. The diet ofMicrotus agrestis in immission clearings in the Krušné Hory Mts. Folia Zoologica 41: 11–18.

  11. Hestbeck J. 1982. Population regulation of cyclic mammals: the social fence hypothesis. Oikos 39: 157–163.

  12. Ims R. A. 1987a. Male spacing systems in microtine rodents. The American Naturalist 130: 475–484.

  13. Ims R. A. 1987b. Response in spatial organization and behaviour to manipulations of the food resource in the voleClethrionomys rufocanus. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 585–596.

  14. Kaufman D. W., Peterson S. K., Fristick R. and Kaufman G. A. 1983. Effect of microhabitat features on habitat use byPeromyscus leucopus. The American Naturalist 24: 239–248.

  15. Kowalski K. and Ruprecht A. L. 1981. The field vole (Microtus agrestis). [In: Keys to vertebrates of Poland. Mammals. Z. Pucek, ed]. PWN — Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw: 189–190.

  16. Krebs C. J. 1985. Do changes in spacing behaviour drive population cycles in small mammals? [In: Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. R. M. Sibly and R. H. Smith, ededs]. British Ecological Society Symposium 25: 295–312.

  17. Lambin X. and Krebs C. J. 1991. Spatial organization and mating system ofMicrotus townsendii. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28: 353–363.

  18. Madison D. M. 1980. Space use and social structure in meadow voles,Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 15: 9–17.

  19. Madison D. M. and McShea W. J. 1987. Seasonal changes in reproductive tolerance, spacing, and social organization in meadow voles: a microtine model. Annales Zoologici Fennici 27: 899–908.

  20. Milinski M. and Parker G. A. 1991. Competition for resources. [In: Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds]. Blackwell, Oxford: 137–168.

  21. Myllymäki A. 1977. Intraspecific competition and home range dynamics in the field voleMicrotus agrestis. Oikos 29: 553–569.

  22. Nelson J. 1995. Intrasexual competition and spacing behaviour in male field voles,Microtus agrestis, under constant female density and spatial distribution. Oikos 73: 9–14.

  23. Ostfeld R. S. 1986. Territoriality and mating system of California voles. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 691–706.

  24. Ostfeld R. S. 1990. The ecology of territoriality in small mammals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 411–415.

  25. Sandell M., Agrell J., Erlinge S. and Nelson J. 1991. Adult philopatry and dispersal in the field vole,Microtus agrestis. Oecologia 86: 153–158.

  26. Sikorski M. D. and Wójcik A. M. 1990. Mating system and reproductive success in a free-living population of the bank vole,Clethrionomys glareolus. [In: Social systems and population cycles in voles. R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh and G. Bujalska, eds]. Birkhäuser, Basel: 193–202.

  27. Sokal R. R. and Rohlf F. J. 1995. Biometry. Third edition. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York: 1–887.

  28. StatSoft Inc. 1995. STATISTICA for Windows. Computer program manual. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc., 2325 East 13th Street, Tulsa, OK.

  29. Stenseth N. C., Hansson L. and Myllymäki A. 1977. Food selection of the field voleMicrotus agrestis. Oikos 29: 511–524.

  30. Viitala J. 1977. Social organization in cyclic sub-artic populations of the volesClethrionomys rufocanus (Sund.) andMicrotus agrestis (L.). Annales Zoologici Fennici 14: 53–93.

  31. Viitala J. and Pusenius J. 1990. A comparative study of phenotypic changes inMicrotus social organization. [In: Social systems and population cycles in voles. R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh and G. Bujalska, eds]. Birkhäuser, Basel: 134–142.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Zbigniew Borowski.

Additional information

Associate Editor was Leszek Rychlik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borowski, Z. Habitat selection and home range size of field volesMicrotus agrestis in Słowiński National Park, Poland. Acta Theriol 48, 325–333 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03194172

Download citation

Key words

  • Microtus agrestis
  • home range size
  • space use
  • habitat selection
  • radio-telemetry