Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 11, pp 2079–2089

From interference to predation: type and effects of direct interspecific interactions of small mammals

  • Monique Liesenjohann
  • Thilo Liesenjohann
  • Lenka Trebaticka
  • Marko Haapakoski
  • Janne Sundell
  • Hannu Ylönen
  • Jana A. Eccard
Original Paper

Abstract

Indirect exploitative competition, direct interference and predation are important interactions affecting species coexistence. These interaction types may overlap and vary with the season and life-history state of individuals. We studied effects of competition and potential nest predation by common shrews (Sorex araneus) on lactating bank voles (Myodes glareolus) in two seasons. The species coexist and may interact aggressively. Additionally, shrews can prey on nestling voles. We studied bank vole mothers’ spatial and temporal adaptations to shrew presence during summer and autumn. Further, we focused on fitness costs, e.g. decreased offspring survival, which bank voles may experience in the presence of shrews. In summer, interference with shrews decreased the voles’ home ranges and they spent more time outside the nest, but there were no effects on offspring survival. In autumn, we found decreased offspring survival in enclosures with shrews, potentially due to nest predation by shrews or by increased competition between species. Our results indicate a shift between interaction types depending on seasonal constraints. In summer, voles and shrews seem to interact mainly by interference, whereas resource competition and/or nest predation by shrews gain importance in autumn. Different food availability, changing environmental conditions and the energetic constraints in voles and shrews later in the year may be the reasons for the varying combinations of interaction types and their increasing effects on the inclusive fitness of bank voles. Our study provides evidence for the need of studies combining life history with behavioural measurements and seasonal constraints.

Keywords

Nest predation Interspecific interaction Coexistence Interference Small mammals Voles Shrews 

References

  1. Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig M, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarasekare P (2002) Interference competition and species coexistence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological Sciences 269:2541–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amarasekare P, Nisbet R (2001) Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am Nat 158:572–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong RA, McGehee R (1980) Competitive-exclusion. Am Nat 115:151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajkowska U, Chetnicki W, Fedyk S (2009) Breeding of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, under laboratory conditions. Folia Zoologica 58:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boonstra R, Krebs C, Kenney A (1996) Why lemmings have indoor plumbing in summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue canadienne de zoologie 74:1947–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borowski Z, Owadowska E (2010) Field vole (Microtus agrestis) seasonal spacing behavior: the effect of predation risk by mustelids. Naturwissenschaften 97:487–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley J, Marzluff J (2003) Rodents as nest predators: influences on predatory behavior and consequences to nesting birds. AUK 120:1180–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case TJ, Casten RG (1979) Global stability and multiple domains of attraction in ecological systems. Am Nat 113:705–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Case T, Gilpin M (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchfield S (1982) Food availability and the diet of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, in Britain. J Anim Ecol 51:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchfield S (1990) The natural history of shrews. Christopher Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition—evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dugatkin L, Godin J (1992) Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia-reticulata. Environmental Biology of Fishes 34:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eadie W (1952) Shrew predation and voles populations on a localized area. J Mammal 33:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2002) Direct interference or indirect exploitation? An experimental study of fitness costs of interspecific competition in voles. Oikos 99:580–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eccard J, Ylönen H (2003a) Who bears the costs of interspecific competition in an age-structured population? Ecology 84:3284–3293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2003b) Interspecific competition in small rodents: from populations to individuals. Evolutionary Ecology 17:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2007) Costs of coexistence along a gradient of competitor densities: an experiment with arvicoline rodents. J Anim Ecol 76(1):65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fulk G (1972) Effect of shrews on space utilization of voles. J Mammal 53:461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Getz L, Larson C, Lindstrom K (1992) Blarina-brevicauda as a predator on nestling voles. J Mammal 73:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gliwicz J, Dabrowski MJ (2008) Ecological factors affecting the diel activity of voles in a multi-species community. Annales Zoologici Fennici 45:242–247Google Scholar
  23. Halle S (1995) Effect of extrinsic factors on activity of root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Journal of Mammalogy 76:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halle S (2006) Polyphasic activity patterns in small mammals. Folia Primatol 77:15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson L (1968) Population densities of small mammals in open field habitats in south Sweden in 1964–1967. Oikos 19:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansson L (1985) Clethrionomys food—generic, specific and regional characteristics. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22:315–318Google Scholar
  27. Harris DB, Gregory SD, Macdonald DW (2006) Space invaders? A search for patterns underlying the coexistence of alien black rats and Galapagos rice rats. Oecologia 149:276–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henttonen H, Haukisalmi V, Kaikusalo A, Korpimaki E, Norrdahl K, Skaren U (1989) Long-term population-dynamics of the common shrew Sorex-araneus in Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 26:349–355Google Scholar
  29. Hoset K, Steen H (2007) Relaxed competition during winter may explain the coexistence of two sympatric Microtus species. Annales Zoologici Fennici 44:415–424Google Scholar
  30. Huitu O, Norrdahl K, Korpimaki E (2004) Competition, predation and interspecific synchrony in cyclic small mammal communities. Ecography 27:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaikusalo A (1982) Predatory mammals and vole populations in the fell regions of north-west Finland. Suomen Riista 29:89–92Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy E, White D (1996) Interference competition from house wrens as a factor in the decline of Bewick’s Wrens. Conserv Biol 10:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenward RE, Hodder KH (1996) RANGES V: an analysis system for biological location data. Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, p 66Google Scholar
  34. Koskela E, Mappes T, Ylönen H (1997) Territorial behaviour and reproductive success of bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus females. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambin X, Yoccoz NG (1998) The impact of population kin-structure on nestling survival in Townsend’s voles, Microtus townsendii. Journal Of Animal Ecology 67:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laundre J, Hernandez L, Altendorf K (2001) Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue canadienne de zoologie 79:1401–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levins R (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. Am Nat 114:765–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liesenjohann T, Eccard JA (2008) Foraging under uniform risk from different types of predators. BMC Ecol 8:19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mappes T, Ylönen H, Viitala J (1995) Higher reproductive success among kin groups of bank voles (Clethrionomys-glareolus). Ecology 76:1276–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell WA (1990) An optimal-control theory of diet selection—the effects of resource depletion and exploitative competition. Oikos 58:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell WA, Abramsky Z, Kotler BP, Pinshow B, Brown JS (1990) The effect of competition on foraging activity in desert rodents—theory and experiments. Ecology 71:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nakayama S, Ojanguren AF, Fuiman LA (2009) To fight, or not to fight: determinants and consequences of social behaviour in young red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Behaviour 146:815–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niethammer J, Krapp F (1982) Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas—Rodentia II, vol 2/I, 1st edn. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  45. Norrdahl K, Korpimaki E (2000) The impact of predation risk from small mustelids on prey populations. Mammal Review 30:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oksanen T, Jonsson P, Koskela E, Mappes T (2001) Optimal allocation of reproductive effort: manipulation of offspring number and size in the bank vole. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 268:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsson O, Molokwu MN (2007) On the missed opportunity cost, GUD, and estimating environmental quality. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution 53:263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palomares F, Caro TM (1999) Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. Am Nat 153:492–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pernetta J (1976) Diets of shrews Sorex-araneus L. and Sorex-minutus L. in Wytham-grassland. J Anim Ecol 45:899–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1986) Scorpions, spiders and solpugids: predation and competition among distantly related taxa. Oecologia 71:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Punzo F (2003) Observations on the diet composition of the gray shrew Notiosorex crawfordi (Insectivora), including interactions with large arthropods. Texas Journal of Science 55:75–86Google Scholar
  52. Ricklefs RE (1969) Natural selection and development of mortality rates in young birds. Nature 223:922–925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruzic A (1971) Spitzmäuse als Räuber der Feldmaus Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1779). Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 19:366–370Google Scholar
  54. Rychlik L, Jancewicz E (2002) Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes. Behavioral Ecology 13:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scharf I, Filin I, Ovadia O (2008) An experimental design and a statistical analysis separating interference from exploitation competition. Population Ecology 50:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shenbrot G, Krasnov B (2002) Can interaction coefficients be determined from census data? Testing two estimation methods with Negev Desert rodents. OIKOS 99:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smallegange I, van der Meer J, Kurvers R (2006) Disentangling interference competition from exploitative competition in a crab–bivalve system using a novel experimental approach. Oikos 113:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Torres PF, Eterovick PC (2010) Anuran assemblage composition and distribution at a modified environment in Tres Marias reservoir, south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 44:2649–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Triplet P, Stillman R, Goss-Custard J (1999) Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. J Anim Ecol 68:254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Valeix M, Chamaille-Jammes S, Fritz H (2007) Interference competition and temporal niche shifts: elephants and herbivore communities at waterholes. Oecologia 153:739–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Viitala J (1984) The red vole, Clethrionomys rutilus (Pall.), as a subordinate member of the rodent community at Kilpisjärvi, Finnish Lapland. Acta Zool Fenn 172:67–70Google Scholar
  63. Walls S (1990) Interference competition in postmetamorphic salamanders—interspecific differences in aggression by coexisting species. Ecology 71:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolff JO (1993) Why are female small mammals territorial. Oikos 68:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolff J, Bateman G (1978) Effects of food availability and ambient temperature on torpor cycles of Perognathus flavus (Heteromyidae). J Mammal 59:707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolff JO, Peterson JA (1998) An offspring-defense hypothesis for territoriality in female mammals. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 10:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolff JO, Schauber EM (1996) Space use and juvenile recruitment in gray-tailed voles in response to intruder pressure and food abundance. Acta Theriol 41:35–43Google Scholar
  68. Ylönen H (1990) Phenotypic flexibility in the social organization of Clethrionomys. In: Tamarin R, Ostfeld R, Pugh S, Bujalska G (eds) Social systems and population cycles in voles. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 203–212Google Scholar
  69. Ylönen H, Viitala J (1985) Social-organisation of an enclosed winter population of the bank vole Clethrionomys-glareolus. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22:353–358Google Scholar
  70. Ylönen H, Viitala J (1991) Social overwintering and food distribution in the bank vole Clethrionomys-glareolus. Holarctic Ecology 14:131–137Google Scholar
  71. Ylönen H, Kojola T, Viitala J (1988) Changing female spacing behaviour and demography in an enclosed breeding population of Clethrionomys glareolus. Holarctic Ecology 11:286–292Google Scholar
  72. Ylönen H, Horne T, Luukkonen M (2004) Effect of birth and weaning mass on growth, survival and reproduction in the bank vole. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:433–442Google Scholar
  73. Zeng XH, Lu X (2009) Interspecific dominance and asymmetric competition with respect to nesting habitats between two snowfinch species in a high-altitude extreme environment. Ecological Research 24:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ziv Y, Abramsky Z, Kotler B, Subach A (1993) Interference competition and temporal and habitat partitioning in 2 gerbil species. Oikos 66:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monique Liesenjohann
    • 1
  • Thilo Liesenjohann
    • 1
  • Lenka Trebaticka
    • 2
  • Marko Haapakoski
    • 2
  • Janne Sundell
    • 3
  • Hannu Ylönen
    • 2
  • Jana A. Eccard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental Science and Konnevesi Research StationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biological & Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations