, 98:863 | Cite as

Food preferences and mound-building behaviour of the mound-building mice Mus spicilegus

  • Michaela Hölzl
  • Ján Krištofík
  • Alžbeta Darolová
  • Herbert Hoi
Original Paper


Optimal foraging strategies and food choice are influenced by various factors, e.g. availability, size and caloric content of the food type and predation risk. However, food choice criteria may change when food is not eaten immediately but has to be carried to a storage site for later use. For example, handling time in terms of harvesting and transport time should be optimized, particularly when the risk of predation is high. Thus, it is not clear whether food selected by hoarding animals reflects their food preference due to intrinsic features of the food type, e.g. size, caloric or lipid content, or whether the food type selected is a compromise that also considers the handling time required for harvesting and transport. We investigate this question in relation to food hoarding behaviour in mound-building mice. In autumn, mound-building mice Mus spicilegus collect seeds and other plant material and cover it with soil. Such above-ground storage is quite unusual for rodents. Here, we investigated whether there is a relationship between the seed species preferred as building materials and those preferred for food. We conducted a seed preference test using three most collected weed species for mound building. Controlling factors like food availability or predation risk, mice prefer Setaria spp. as food, although Amaranthus spp. and Chenopodium spp. were preferentially harvested and stored. By including the availability of the three species, our experimental results were confirmed, namely, a clear preference for Setaria spp. Also, handling time and seed size revealed to influence plant choice.


Mus spicilegus Seed preference Food storage Optimal foraging 


  1. Best TL, Intress C, Shull KD (1988) Mound structure in three taxa of Mexican kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spectabilis cratodon, D. s. zygomaticus and D. nelsoni). Am Midl Nat 119:216–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bihari Z (2004) A güzüegér (Mus spicilegus) életmódjának sajátságai és mezögazdasági jelentösége. Növényvédelem 40:245–250Google Scholar
  3. Bradford MG, Dennis AJ, Westcott DA (2008) Diet and dietary preferences of the southern cassowary (Casuarius casuarius) in North Queensland, Australia. Biotropica 40:338–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00372.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie, Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Springer, WienGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer SW (2001) Predation and dispersal of large and small seeds of a tropical palm. Oikos 92:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronson FH (1979) The reproduction ecology of the house mouse. Quart Rev Biol 54:265–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsen M (1993) Migration of Mus musculus musculus in Danish farmland. Z Säugetierk 58:172–180Google Scholar
  8. Chang G, Xiao Z, Zhang Z (2010) Effects of burrow condition and seed handling time on hoarding strategies of Edward's long-tailed rat (Leopoldamys edwardsi). Behav Process 85:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deshpande HW, Poshadri A (2011) Physical and sensory characteristics of extruded snacks prepared from foxtail millet based composite flours. Inter Food R J 18:730–735Google Scholar
  10. Emmerling-Skala A (2005) Sultan der Gemüsegärten? - der Weiße Gänsefuß (Chenopodium album L.) als Nahrungspflanze, VEN Verein zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt e. V., CremlingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Festetics A (1961) Ährenmaushügel in Österreich. Z Säugetierk 26:112–125Google Scholar
  12. Garza JC, Dallas J, Duryadi D, Gerasimov S, Croset H, Boursot P (1997) Social structure of the mound building mouse Mus spicilegus revealed by genetic analysis with microsatellites. Mol Ecol 6:1009–1017. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00278.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gouat P, Féron C, Demouron S (2003a) Seasonal reproduction and delayed sexual maturity in mound-building mice Mus spicilegus. Reprod Fertil Dev 15:187–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouat P, Katona K, Poteaux C (2003b) Is the socio-spatial distribution of mound-building mice, Mus spicilegus, compatible with a monogamous mating system? Mammalia 67:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grulich I (1981) Die Baue des Hamsters (Cricetus cricetus, Rodentia, Mammalia). Folia Zool 30:99–116Google Scholar
  16. Harrold RL, Craig DL, Nalewaja JD, North BB (1980) Nutritional value of green or yellow foxtail, wild oats, wild buckwheat or redroot pigweed seeds as determined with the rat. J Anim Sci 51:127–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölzl M, Hoi H, Darolová A, Krištofík J, Penn DJ (2009) Why do the mounds of Mus spicilegus vary so much in size and composition? Mamm Biol 74:308–314. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2009.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölzl M, Hoi H, Darolová A, Krištofík J (2011) Insulation capacity of litter mounds built by Mus spicilegus: physical and thermal characteristics of building material and the role of mound size. Ethol Ecol Evol 231:49–59. doi: 10.1080/03949370.2010.529827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson TP (2001) Factors influencing food collection behaviour of Brants' whistling rat (Parotomys brantsii): a central place forager. J Zool 255:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs LF (1992) The effect of handling time on the decision to cache by gray squirrels. Anim Behav 43:522–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jancurová M, Minarovičová L, Dandár A (2009) Quinoa—a review. Czech J Food Scien 27:71–79Google Scholar
  22. Kerley GIH, Erasmus T (1991) What do mice select for in seeds? Oecologia 86:261–267. doi: 10.1007/BF00317539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 23–63Google Scholar
  24. Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121Google Scholar
  25. Lobo N, Duong M, Millar JS (2009) Conifer-seed preferences of small mammals. Can J Zool 87:773–780. doi: 10.1139/Z09-070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCleery RH (1978) Optimal behaviour sequences and decision making. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 377–410Google Scholar
  27. Muñoz A, Bonal R (2008a) Are you strong enough to carry that seed? Seed size/body size ratios influence seed choices by rodents. Anim Behav 76:709–715. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muñoz A, Bonal R (2008b) Seed choice by rodents: learning or inheritance? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:913–922. doi: 10.1007/s00265-007-0515-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muriaru D (1981) La presence de Mus musculus spicilegus Petenyi, 1882 dans le delta du Danube accompagne de son "parasite" Apodemus agrarius (Pall., 1771). Trav Mus Hist Nat "Grigore Antipa" 23:297–304Google Scholar
  30. Passilly-Degrace P, Gaillard D, Besnard P (2008) Perception gustative des lipides alimentaires. Cahiers Nutr Diet 43:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poteaux C, Busquet N, Gouat P, Katona K, Baudoin C (2008) Socio-genetic structure of mound-building mice, Mus spicilegus, in autumn and early spring. Biol J Linn Soc 93:689–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00944.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reichman OJ, Wicklow DT, Rebar C (1985) Ecological and morphological characteristics of caches in the mounds of Dipodomys spectabilis. J Mammal 66:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sena LP, Vanderjagt DJ, Rivera C, Tsin ATC, Muhamadu I, Mahamadou O, Milleson M, Pastuszyn A, Glew RH (1998) Analysis of nutritional components of eight famine foods of the Republic of Niger. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 52:17–30. doi: 10.1023/A:1008010009170 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simeonovska-Nikolova DM (2007) Spatial organisation of the mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus in the region of northern Bulgaria. Acta Zool Sinica 53:22–28Google Scholar
  35. Sokolov VE, Kotenkova EV, Michailenko AG (1998) Mus spicilegus. Mammal Spec 592:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sridhar R, Lakshminarayana G (1994) Contents of total lipids and lipid classes and composition of fatty acids in small millets: foxtail (Setaria italica), proso (Panicum miliaceum), and finger (Eleusine coracana). Cereal Chem 71:355–359Google Scholar
  37. Stein GHW (1958) Die Feldmaus (Microtus arvalis Pallas). Die Neue Brehm-Bücherei, A. Ziemsen-Verlag, Wittenberg-LutherstadtGoogle Scholar
  38. Suárez OV, Kravetz FO (1998) Transmission of food selectivity from mothers to offspring in Akodon azarae (Rodentia, Muridae). Behaviour 135:251–259Google Scholar
  39. Unterholzner K, Willenig R, Bauer K (2000) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ährenmaus Mus spicilegus Petenyi, 1882. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Vander Wall SB (1990) Food hoarding in animals. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Hölzl
    • 1
  • Ján Krištofík
    • 2
  • Alžbeta Darolová
    • 2
  • Herbert Hoi
    • 1
  1. 1.Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, Department of Integrative Biology and EvolutionUniversity of Veterinary MedicineViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of ZoologySlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations