, Volume 173, Issue 1, pp 161–167 | Cite as

The role of colonization in the dynamics of patchy populations of a cyclic vole species

  • Petter GlorvigenEmail author
  • Gry Gundersen
  • Harry P. Andreassen
  • Rolf A. Ims
Population ecology - Original research


The crash phase of vole populations with cyclic dynamics regularly leads to vast areas of uninhabited habitats. Yet although the capacity for cyclic voles to re-colonize such empty space is likely to be large and predicted to have become evolved as a distinct life history trait, the processes of colonization and its effect on the spatio-temporal dynamics have been little studied. Here we report from an experiment with root voles (Microtus oeconomus) specifically targeted at quantifying the process of colonization of empty patches from distant source patches and its resultant effect on local vole deme size variation in a patchy landscape. Three experimental factors: habitat quality, predation risk and inter-patch distance were employed among 24 habitat patches in a 100 × 300-m experimental area. The first-born cohort in the spring efficiently colonized almost all empty patches irrespective of the degree of patch isolation and predation risk, but this was dependent on habitat quality. Just after the initial colonization wave the deme sizes in patches of the same quality were underdispersed relative to Poisson variance, indicating regulated (density-dependent) settlement. Towards the end of the breeding season local demographic processes acted to smooth out the initial post-colonization differences among source and colonization patches, and among patches of initially different quality. However, at this time demographic stochasticity had also given rise to a large (overdispersed) variation in deme sizes that may have contributed to an overshadowing of the effect of other factors. The results of this experiment confirmed our expectation that the space-filling capacity of voles is large. The costs associated with transience appeared to be so low, at least at the spatial scale considered in this experiment, that such costs are not likely to substantially constrain habitat selection and colonization in the increase phase of cyclic patchy populations.


Dispersal Extinction Habitat selection Immigration Population cycle 



We thank all the volunteers that helped during field work at the Landscape Ecological Field Station, Campus Evenstad. The project was founded by The Research Council of Norway (project 182612).


  1. Aars J, Ims RA (1999) The effect of habitat corridors on rates of transfer and interbreeding between vole demes. Ecology 80:1648–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aars J, Ims RA (2000) Population dynamic and genetic consequences of spatial density-dependent dispersal in patchy populations. Am Nat 155:252–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aars J, Ims RA (2002) Intrinsic and climatic determinants of population demography: the winter dynamics of tundra voles. Ecology 83:3449–3456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aars J, Johannesen E, Ims RA (1999) Demographic consequences of movements in subdivided root vole populations. Oikos 85:204–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreassen HP, Gundersen G (2006) Male turnover reduces population growth: an enclosure experiment on voles. Ecology 87:88–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2001) Dispersal in patchy vole populations: role of patch configuration, density dependence, and demography. Ecology 82:2911–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andreassen HP, Halle S, Ims RA (1996) Optimal width of movement corridors for root voles: not too narrow and not too wide. J Appl Ecol 33:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andreassen HP, Hertzberg K, Ims RA (1998) Space use responses to habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the root vole Microtus oeconomus. Ecology 79:1223–1235Google Scholar
  9. Andreassen HP, Stenseth NC, Ims RA (2002) Dispersal behaviour and population dynamics of vertebrates. In: Bullock JM, Kenward RE, Hails RS (eds) Dispersal ecology. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, pp 237–256Google Scholar
  10. Barrett GW, Peles JD (eds) (1999) Landscape ecology of small mammals. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bondrup-Nielsen S, Ims RA (1988) Predicting stable and cyclic populations of Clethrionomys. Oikos 52:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boonstra R, Krebs CJ, Gaines MS, Johnson ML, Craine ITM (1987) Natal philopatry and breeding systems in voles (Microtus spp). J Anim Ecol 56:655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnov EL, Finerty JP (1980) Vole population-cycles: a case for kin-selection. Oecologia 45:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebenhard T (1990) A colonization strategy in field voles (Microtus-agrestis): reproductive traits and body size. Ecology 71:1833–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glorvigen P, Bjornstad ON, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2012) Settlement in empty versus occupied habitats: an experimental study on bank voles. Popul Ecol 54:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gundersen G, Andreassen HP (1998) Causes and consequences of natal dispersal in root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Anim Behav 56:1355–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gundersen G, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2002) Individual and population level determinants of immigration success on local habitat patches: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett 5:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Henden JA, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Sorensen R, Killengreen ST (2011) Population dynamics of tundra voles in relation to configuration of willow thickets in southern arctic tundra. Polar Biol 34:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ims RA (1997) Determinants of geographic variation in growth and reproductive traits in the root vole. Ecology 78:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ims RA, Andreassen HP (2000) Spatial synchronization of vole population dynamics by predatory birds. Nature 408:194–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ims RA, Andreassen HP (2005) Density-dependent dispersal and spatial population dynamics. Proc R Soc B 272:913–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ims RA, Hjermann DØ (2001) Condition-dependent dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 203–216Google Scholar
  24. Ims RA, Yoccoz NG (1997) The study of transfer processes in metapopulations: emigration, dispersal and colonization. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation dynamics: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 247–265Google Scholar
  25. Lambin X, Krebs CJ, Scott B (1992) Spacing system of the tundra vole (Microtus-oeconomus) during the breeding-season in Canada’s western Arctic. Can J Zool 70:2068–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Galliard JF, Gundersen G, Andreassen HP, Stenseth NC (2006) Natal dispersal, interactions among siblings and intrasexual competition. Behav Ecol 17:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Le Galliard JF, Remy A, Ims RA, Lambin X (2012) Patterns and processes of dispersal behaviour in arvicoline rodents. Mol Ecol 21:505–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin YK, Batzli GO (2004) Movements across habitat boundaries: effects of food and cover. J Mammal 85:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin YK, Keane B, Isenhour A, Solomon NG (2006) Effects of patch quality on dispersal and social organization of prairie voles: an experimental approach. J Mammal 87:446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Löfgren O (1995) Spatial organization of cyclic Clethrionomys females—occupancy of all available space at peak densities. Oikos 72:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steen H (1994) Low survival of long distance dispersers of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus). Ann Zool Fenn 31:271–274Google Scholar
  32. Steen H (1995) Untangling the causes of disappearance from a local population of root voles, Microtus oeconomus—a test of the regional synchrony hypothesis. Oikos 73:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stenseth NC (1978) Is female biased sex-ratio in wood lemming Myopus schisticolor maintained by cyclic inbreeding? Oikos 30:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stenseth NC, Lidicker WZ (eds) (1992) Animal dispersal. Small mammals as a model. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Stenseth NC, Lomnicki A (1990) On the Charnov-Finerty hypothesis—the unproblematic transition from docile to aggressive and the problematic transition from aggressive to docile. Oikos 58:234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sundell J, Church C, Ovaskainen O (2012) Spatio-temporal patterns of habitat use in voles and shrews modified by density, season and predators. J Anim Ecol 81:747–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tast J (1966) The root vole, Microtus oeconomus (Pallas), as an inhabitant of seasonally flooded land. Ann Zool Fenn 3:127–170Google Scholar
  38. Warkowska-Dratna H, Stenseth NC (1985) Dispersal and the microtine cycle: comparison of two hypotheses. Oecologia 65:468–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petter Glorvigen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gry Gundersen
    • 2
  • Harry P. Andreassen
    • 1
  • Rolf A. Ims
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural ScienceHedmark University CollegeKoppangNorway
  2. 2.Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of BiologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations