, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 85–90 | Cite as

Recognition of prey odor in wild meerkats

Short Communication


Although mongooses are well-known to use odor cues in social communication, whether they also use olfaction in foraging is unknown. In this study, I investigated the olfactory ability of wild meerkats to recognize prey items that vary in frequency in their diet. Meerkats aged from 28 days to 2 years were presented with cotton-buds scented with common prey (larvae), less-common prey (scorpions, crickets), non-prey (dung beetles) or a control (no scent). Biting behavior and time spent sniffing the cotton-bud were recorded. Meerkats bit cotton-buds that smelled of larvae more often than cotton-buds that smelled of non-prey or control. They bit cotton-buds that smelled of crickets or scorpions at an intermediate rate. Meerkats’ age and sex did not affect the response. Hence, meerkats can discriminate the odor of their prey from the odor of non-prey items, and tend to show preference for frequent prey over less-common prey. Furthermore, meerkats may use olfactory cues for short-distance detection of prey, but experiments are needed to determine the specific phases of the foraging process where olfaction is involved.


Meerkat Prey Odor Foraging 



I thank T. Clutton-Brock and M. Manser for providing access to the animals, and A. Szabo, N. Thavarajah, and J. Samson for their help in the field. I am grateful to the Kotze family and other farmers neighboring the Kuruman River Reserve for graciously allowing me to work on their land and to the Northern Cape for permission to conduct the research. All research protocols were approved by the University of Pretoria Ethics committee (Project No. EC011-10).

Compliance with ethical standards


This study was supported by a Fondation Fyssen postdoctoral grant. During the span of this study, the Kalahari Meerkat Project was financed by Cambridge, Zurich and Duke Universities (Duke’s contribution was through a National Science Foundation grant IOS-1021633 to Christine Drea). I relied on records of individual identities and/or life histories maintained by the Kalahari Meerkat Project, which has been supported by European Research Council Grant (No. 294494) to T. Clutton-Brock and Swiss National Science Foundation Grant (31003A_13676) to M. Manser.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. Abulude F (2004) Proximate composition, minerals content and functional properties of cricket (Acheta spp.). Pak J Sci Ind Res 47:212–213Google Scholar
  2. Abulude F, Ogunkoya M, Esiet E, Kayode B, Oni J (2006) Studies on scorpion (Androctonus australis): nutritional and anti-nutritional factors. J Entomol 3:156–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amo L, Jansen JJ, Dam NM, Dicke M, Visser ME (2013) Birds exploit herbivore-induced plant volatiles to locate herbivorous prey. Ecol Lett 16:1348–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Apfelbach R (1973) Olfactory sign stimulus for prey selection in polecats (Putorius putorius L.). Z Tierpsychol 33:270–273Google Scholar
  5. Bahlman JW, Kelt DA (2007) Use of olfaction during prey location by the common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus). Biotropica 39:147–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bousquet CA, Sumpter DJ, Manser MB (2011) Moving calls: a vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1482–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotherton P, Clutton-Brock T, O’riain M, Gaynor D, Sharpe L, Kansky R, McIlrath G (2001) Offspring food allocation by parents and helpers in a cooperative mammal. Behav Ecol 12:590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, McIlrath GM, Maccoll ADC, Kansky R, Chadwick P, Manser M, Skinner JD, Brotherton PNM (1999) Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 68:672–683. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00317.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Flower TP (2008) Group size and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in Kalahari meerkats. Anim Behav 76:689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper WE Jr (1991) Responses to prey chemicals by a lacertid lizard, Podarcis muralis: prey chemical discrimination and poststrike elevation in tongue-flick rate. J Chem Ecol 17:849–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham GB, Van Buskirk RW, Hodges MJ, Weimerskirch H, Nevitt GA (2006) Behavioural responses of blue petrel chicks (Halobaena caerulea) to food-related and novel odours in a simple wind tunnel. Antarct Sci 18:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doolan SP, Macdonald DW (1996) Diet and foraging behaviour of group-living meerkats, Suricata suricatta, in the southern Kalahari. J Zool 239:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons ME, Ferguson AM, Lee DR (2005) Both learning and heritability affect foraging behaviour of red-backed salamanders, Plethodon cinereus. Anim Behav 69:721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaser AS (2006) Prey detection and foraging strategies in meerkats (Suricata Suricatta). Universität ZürichGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorman ML (1976) A mechanism for individual recognition by odour in Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae). Anim Behav 24:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoefler CD, Taylor M, Jakob EM (2002) Chemosensory response to prey in Phidippus audax (Araneae, Salticidae) and Pardosa milvina (Araneae, Lycosidae). J Arachnol 30:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger RM (2008) multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models. R package version 10–0Google Scholar
  18. Houpt KA, Hintz HF, Shepherd P (1978) The role of olfaction in canine food preferences. Chem Senses 3:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes NK, Price CJ, Banks PB (2010) Predators are attracted to the olfactory signals of prey. Plos One 5: e13114 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013114
  20. Johannesen A, Dunn AM, Morrell LJ (2012) Olfactory cue use by three-spined sticklebacks foraging in turbid water: prey detection or prey location? Anim Behav 84:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones G, Webb PI, Sedgeley JA, O’Donnell CFJ (2003) Mysterious Mystacina: how the New Zealand short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata) locates insect prey. J Exp Biol 206:4209–4216. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00678 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan NR (2007) Scent-marking investment is determined by sex and breeding status in meerkats. Anim Behav 74:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan NR, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2007) Latrine distribution and patterns of use by wild meerkats: implications for territory and mate defence. Anim Behav 73:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Rüedi P, Cant MA (2010) Scent marking within and between groups of wild banded mongooses. J Zool 280:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Rueedi P, Hodge SJ, Cant MA (2011) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 3. Intrasexual overmarking in females. Anim Behav 81:51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lai Y-T, Chen J-H, Lee L-L (2011) The chemosensory ability of the predatory leech Whitmania laevis (Arhynchobdellida: Haemopidae) for prey searching. Chemoecology 21:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langley WM (1984) Recognition of prey species by their odors in the grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster). Behav Processes 9:277–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Laska M, Freist P, Krause S (2007) Which senses play a role in nonhuman primate food selection? A comparison between squirrel monkeys and spider monkeys. Am J Primatol 69:282–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Le Roux A, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2008) The effects of population density and sociality on scent marking in the yellow mongoose. J Zool 275:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leclaire S, Nielsen JF, Thavarajah NK, Manser M, Clutton-Brock TH (2013) Odour-based kin discrimination in the cooperatively breeding meerkat. Biol Lett 9:20121054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Mares R, Young AJ, Levesque DL, Harrison N, Clutton-Brock TH (2011) Responses to intruder scents in the cooperatively breeding meerkat: sex and social status differences and temporal variation. Behav Ecol 22:594–600. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nevo O, Heymann EW (2015) Led by the nose: olfaction in primate feeding ecology. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 24:137–148Google Scholar
  33. Piep M, Radespiel U, Zimmermann E, Schmidt S, Siemers BM (2008) The sensory basis of prey detection in captive-born grey mouse lemurs, Microcebus murinus. Anim Behav 75:871–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Raguso RA, Willis MA (2002) Synergy between visual and olfactory cues in nectar feeding by naıve hawkmoths, Manduca sexta. Anim Behav 64:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Recher HF, Recher JA (1969) Comparative foraging efficiency of adult and immature Little Blue Herons (Florida caerulea). Anim Behav 17:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shinn EA, Dole JW (1978) Evidence for a role for olfactory cues in the feeding response of leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Herpetologica 167–172Google Scholar
  38. Siemers BM, Goerlitz HR, Robsomanitrandrasana E, Piep M, Ramanamanjato J-B, Rakotondravony D, Ramilijaona O, Ganzhorn JU (2007) Sensory basis of food detection in wild Microcebus murinus. Int J Primatol 28:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens M (2013) Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Thornton A, Hodge SJ (2009) The development of foraging microhabitat preferences in meerkats. Behav Ecol 20:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornton A, McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313:227–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantomme P (2013) Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. Food and agriculture organization of the United nations (FAO)Google Scholar
  43. Vincent SE, Shine R, Brown GP (2005) Does foraging mode influence sensory modalities for prey detection in male and female filesnakes, Acrochordus arafurae? Anim Behav 70:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xiaoming C, Ying F, Hong Z, Zhiyong C (2010) Review of the nutritive value of edible insects. Forest insects as food: humans bite back 85Google Scholar
  45. Ylönen H, Sundell J, Tiilikainen R, Eccard JA, Horne T (2003) Weasels’ (Mustela nivalis nivalis) preference for olfactory cues of the vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). Ecology 84:1447–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmer-Faust RK (1987) Crustacean chemical perception: towards a theory on optimal chemoreception. Biol Bull 172:10–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuk M, Kolluru GR (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 73:415–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Kalahari Meerkat Project, Kuruman River ReserveVan ZylsrusSouth Africa
  3. 3.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRSMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire Evolution and Diversité BiologiqueUMR 5174 (CNRS, Université Paul Sabatier, ENFA)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations