Acta Theriologica

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 339–348 | Cite as

Long-distance movements of individuals in a free-living bank vole population: an important element of male breeding strategy

  • Michał Kozakiewicz
  • Agnieszka Chołuj
  • Anna Kozakiewicz
Article

Abstract

The experiment involved two stages: the first one consisted of studying the dynamics of long-distance movements and the characteristics of moving individuals in a free-living population of bank voles and the second one — of an analysis of paternity of young individuals born to females representing specific breeding colonies (basing on an analysis of six microsatellite fragments). The study has shown that both male and female bank voles are capable of covering long distances of up to almost 1 km. Males moved significantly more frequently than females. The proportion of travelling males was the highest in spring and the lowest in autumn. Almost all moving males were adult and they were sexually active. Almost all moving females were adult, however, the majority of them were sexually inactive. This indicates that the character and causes of long-distance movements of females and males differ. Female movements are supposed to be related to the search for living and breeding grounds by young, already adult individuals, driven out from their mothers’ territory. Multiple paternity occurred in 25% of all litters analysed. Young whose fathers were males from outside of their mother’s breeding colonies occurred in litters throughout the whole breeding season. They made up 59% of all young analysed and in the spring (June) all the young animals were born to fathers originating outside of the female’s breeding colony. The results obtained may confirm the hypothesis that long-distance movements of male bank voles constitute a part of their breeding strategy, involving them in searching for breeding partners over an extensive area.

Key words

bank vole Myodes (=Clethrionomys)glareolus breeding strategy long-distance movements dispersal multiple paternity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aars J., Ims R. A., Liu H. P., Mulvey M. and Smith M. H. 1998. Bank voles in linear habitats show restricted gene flow as revealed by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Molecular Ecology 7: 1383–1389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski R. and Babińska-Werka J. 1986. Bank vole populations: are their densities really high and individual home ranges small? Acta Theriologica 31: 407–420.Google Scholar
  3. Bondrup-Nielsen S. and Ims R. A. 1986. Spacing behavior and reproduction in a peak density population ofClethrionomys glareolus. Holarctic Ecology 9: 109–112.Google Scholar
  4. Bujalska G. 1994. Female and male territoriality in the bank vole. [In: Animal societis. Individuals, interactions and organisation. P. J. Jarman and A. Rossitier, eds]. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto: 56–69.Google Scholar
  5. Bujalska G. and Grüm L. 1989. Social organization of the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus, Schreber 1780) and its demographic consequences: a model. Oecologia 80: 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bujalska G. and Saitoh T. 2000. Territoriality and its consequences. Polish Journal of Ecology 48 (Suppl.): 37–49.Google Scholar
  7. Dewsbury D. A. and Hartung T. G. 1980. Copulatory behaviour and differential reproduction of laboratory rats in two-male, one female competitive situation. Animal Behaviour 28: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerlach G. and Musolf K. 2000. Fragmentation of landscape as a cause for genetic subdivision in bank voles. Conservation Biology 14: 1066–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gliwicz J. and Ims R. A. 2000. Dispersal in the bank vole. Polish Journal of Ecology 48 (Suppl.): 51–61.Google Scholar
  10. Gockel J., Harr B., Schlotterer C., Arnold W., Gerlach G. and Tautz D. 1997. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci fromApodemus flavicollis (Rodentia, Muridae) andClethrionomys glareolus (Rodentia, Cricetidae). Molecular Ecology 6: 597–599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris J. H. and Leitner P. 2004. Home-range size and use of space by adult mohave ground squirerrels,Spermophilus mohavensis. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hohoff Ch., Kerstin F. and Sachser N. 2003. Female choice in a promiscuous wild guinea pig, the yellow-toothed cavy (Galea musteloides). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 53: 341–349.Google Scholar
  13. Hoogland J. 1998. Why do female Gunnison’s prairie dogs copulate with more than one male? Animal Behaviour 55: 351–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Horne T. J. and Ylönen H. 1996. Female bank volesClethrionomys glareolus prefer dominant males; but what if there is no choice? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38: 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ims R. A. 1987. Male spacing systems in microtine rodents. The American Naturalist 130: 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ims R. A. 1988. Spatial clumping of sexually receptive females induces space sharing among male voles. Nature 335: 541–543.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalela O. 1957. Regulation of reproduction rate in subarctic populationns of the voleClethrionomys Rufocanus (Sund.). Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Ser. A 4: 7–60.Google Scholar
  18. Kozakiewicz M., Kozakiewicz A., Łukowski A. and Gortat T. 1993. Use of space by bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) in a polish farm landscape. Landscape Ecology 8: 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kozakiewicz M. and Szacki J. 1995. Movements of small mammals in a landscape: patch restriction or nomadism? [In: Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. W. Z. Lidicker Jr., ed.] University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 78–94.Google Scholar
  20. Löfgren O. 1995. Spatial organization of cyclicClethrionomys females: Occupancy of all available space at peak densities? Oikos 72: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazurkiewicz M. 1983. Ecological structure of the population: spatial organization of the population. Acta Theriologica 28 (Suppl.): 117–127.Google Scholar
  22. Ostfeld R. S. 1985. Limiting resources and territoriality in Microtine rodents. The American Naturalist 126: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostfeld R. S., Peugh S. R., Seamon J. O. and Tamarin R. H. 1988. Space use and reproductive success in a population of meadow vole. Journal of Animal Ecology 57: 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Owadowska E. 1999. The range of olfactory familiarity between individuals in a population of bank voles. Acta Theriologica 44: 133–150.Google Scholar
  25. Rajska-Jurgiel E. 2000. Breeding dispersal inClethrionomys glareolus females. Acta Theriologica 45: 367–376.Google Scholar
  26. Ratkiewicz M. and Borkowska A. 2000. Multiple paternity in the bank voleClethrionomys glareolus: field and experimental data. Zeitschift für Säugetierkunde 65: 6–14.Google Scholar
  27. Rehmeier R. L., Kaufman G. A. and Kaufman D. W. 2004. Long-distance movements of the deer mouse in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 562–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheridan M. and Tamarin R. H. 1988. Space use, longevity and reproductive success in meadow voles. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22: 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon N. G. and Jacquot J. J. 2002. Characteristics of resident and wandering prairie voles,Microtus ochrogaster. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 951–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stacy J. E., Jorde P. E., Steen H., Ims R. A., Purvis A. and Jacobsen K. S. 1997. Lack of concordance between mtDNA gene flow and population density fluctuation in the bank vole. Molecular Ecology 6: 2467–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stockley P. 2003. Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 270: 271–278.Google Scholar
  32. Stockley P., Searle J. B., MacDonald D. W. and Jones C. S. 1993. Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 254: 173–179.Google Scholar
  33. Szacki J. and Liro A. 1991. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecology 5: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolff J. O. and Cicirello D. M. 1990. Mobility versus territoriality: alternative reproductive strategies in white-footed mice. Animal Behaviour 39: 1222–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolff J. O. and Dunlap A. S. 2002. Multi-male mating, probability of conception, and litter size in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioural Processes 58: 105–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ylönen H., Koskela T. and Mappes T. 1997. Infanticide in the bank voleClethrionomys glareolus occurence and the effect of territory neighbourhood on female infanticide. Annales Zoologici Fennici 34: 259–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Kozakiewicz
    • 1
  • Agnieszka Chołuj
    • 1
  • Anna Kozakiewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations