Population Ecology

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 55–63 | Cite as

Settlement in empty versus occupied habitats: an experimental study on bank voles

  • Petter Glorvigen
  • Ottar N. Bjørnstad
  • Harry P. Andreassen
  • Rolf A. Ims
Original article


Despite the recognised importance of colonisation (settlement in empty habitats) and immigration (settlement in an established population) to species persistence and evolution few have investigated these processes in territorial mammals and how they affect species’ traits. We translocated female bank voles (Myodes glareolus) onto an island (2.58 ha) in a two-stage experiment (stage 1: colonisation of empty population space and stage 2: immigration into an established population) to test (1) if colonisers and immigrants differ in probability of settlement and pregnancy, and (2) if settlement is affected by cues of conspecifics, i.e., simulated deserted home ranges (SDHR) and resident presence. Density was kept well below saturation in 8 temporally distinct population replicates over 3 years. SDHR and resident presence neither attracted nor repelled colonisers and immigrants, respectively, and settlement was not different from a random model. Probability of settlement tended to be higher in colonisers than immigrants and the probability of pregnancy was significantly higher in colonisers; immigrants settling within the home range of residents had nearly zero probability of pregnancy. Colonisation of empty habitat patches selected based on physical or resource based habitat features is apparently the optimal settlement strategy of dispersing voles, because cues from conspecifics may provide ambiguous information and social factors may inhibit settlement or delay reproduction in immigrants even at low population density.


Conspecific attraction Habitat selection Myodes Social fence Translocation 



The project was supported by grants from the Nansen endowment and the Research Council of Norway (NAVF project 100720/410 and 182612). We thank two anonymous referees for constructive comments on the manuscript. The experiment complied with the laws of Norway.


  1. Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2001) Dispersal in patchy vole populations: role of patch configuration, density dependence, and demography. Ecology 82:2911–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arakawa H, Blanchard DC, Arakawa K, Dunlap C, Blanchard RJ (2008) Scent marking behavior as an odorant communication in mice. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32:1236–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.05.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bondrup-Nielsen S, Ims RA (1986) Reproduction and spacing behavior of females in a peak density population of Clethrionomys glareolus. Holarct Ecol 9:109–112Google Scholar
  4. Bondrup-Nielsen S, Karlsson F (1985) Movements and spatial patterns in populations of Clethrionomys species: a review. Ann Zool Fenn 22:385–392Google Scholar
  5. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225. doi: 10.1017/s1464793104006645 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan PA, Kendrick KM (2006) Mammalian social odours: attraction and individual recognition. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 361:2061–2078. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography—effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bujalska G, Grum L (1989) Social-organization of the bank vole (Clethrionomys-glareolus) and its demographic consequences: a model. Oecologia 80:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the study of coloniality. Ecology 79:2415–2428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danielson BJ, Gaines MS (1987) The influences of conspecific and heterospecific residents on colonization. Ecology 68:1778–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donahue MJ (2006) Allee effects and conspecific cueing jointly lead to conspecific attraction. Oecologia 149:33–43. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0419-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ecke F, Lofgren O, Sorlin D (2002) Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. J Appl Ecol 39:781–792. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00759.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrich D, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2009) Multi-annual density fluctuations and habitat size enhance genetic variability in two northern voles. Oikos 118:1441–1452. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17532.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene CM, Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection at low population densities. Ecology 82:2091–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gundersen G, Johannesen E, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2001) Source-sink dynamics: how sinks affect demography of sources. Ecol Lett 4:14–21CrossRefGoogle 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 (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson L, Henttonen H (1985) Regional differences in cyclicity and reproduction in Clethrionomys species—are they related. Ann Zool Fenn 22:277–288Google Scholar
  20. Hestbeck JB (1982) Population regulation of cyclic mammals: the social fence hypothesis. Oikos 39:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hildén O (1965) Habitat selection in birds: a review. Ann Zool Fenn 2:53–75Google Scholar
  22. Ims RA (1987) Responses in spatial-organization and behavior to manipulations of the food resource in the vole Clethrionomys-rufacanus. J Anim Ecol 56:585–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ims RA (1988) Spatial clumping of sexually receptive females induces space sharing among male voles. Nature 335:541–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ims RA (1989) Kinship and origin effects on dispersal and space sharing in Clethrionomys-rufocanus. Ecology 70:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Ims RA, Rolstad J, Wegge P (1993) Predicting space use responses to habitat fragmentation—can voles Microtus-oeconomus serve as an experimental-model system (EMS) for capercaillie grouse Tetrao-urogallus in boreal forest. Biol Conserv 63:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johannesen E, Andreassen HP (1998) Survival and reproduction of resident and immigrant female root voles (Microtus oeconomus). Can J Zool 76:763–766Google Scholar
  28. Jonsson P, Hartikainen T, Koskela E, Mappes T (2002) Determinants of reproductive success in voles: space use in relation to food and litter size manipulation. Evol Ecol 16:455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keitt TH, Bjornstad ON, Dixon PM, Citron-Pousty S (2002) Accounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism–environment interactions. Ecography 25:616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klemme I, Ylonen H, Eccard JA (2007) Reproductive success of male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus): the effect of operational sex ratio and body size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1911–1918. doi: 10.1007/s00265-007-0431-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korpela K, Sundell J, Ylonen H (2011) Does personality in small rodents vary depending on population density? Oecologia 165:67–77. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1810-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koskela E, Mappes T, Ylonen H (1997) Territorial behaviour and reproductive success of bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus females. J Anim Ecol 66:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambin X, Aars J, Piertney SB (2001) Dispersal, intraspecific competition, kin competition and kin facilitation: a review of the empirical evidence. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 110–122Google Scholar
  34. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS® for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  35. Lofgren O (1995) Niche expansion and increased maturation rate of Clethrionomys-glareolus in the absence of competitors. J Mammal 76:1100–1112. doi: 10.2307/1382602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mappes T, Ylonen H, Viitala J (1995) Higher reproductive success among kin groups of bank voles (Clethrionomys-glareolus). Ecology 76:1276–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazurkiewicz M (1994) Factors influencing the distribution of the bank vole in forest habitats. Acta Theriol 39:113–126Google Scholar
  38. McGuire B, Getz LL (1998) The nature and frequency of social interactions among free-living prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ożdżeński W, Mystkowska ET (1976) Stages of pregnancy of the bank vole. Acta Theriol 21:279–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Prevot-Julliard AC, Henttonen H, Yoccoz NG, Stenseth NC (1999) Delayed maturation in female bank voles: optimal decision or social constraint? J Anim Ecol 68:684–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rozenfeld FM, Denoel A (1994) Chemical signals involved in spacing behavior of breeding female bank voles Clethrionomys-glareolus. J Chem Ecol 20:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stamps JA (1987) Conspecifics as cues to territory quality—a preference of juvenile lizards (Anolis-aeneus) for previously used territories. Am Nat 129:629–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–242Google Scholar
  45. Stamps JA, Swaisgood RR (2007) Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Appl Anim Behav Sci 102:392–409. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML (2005) Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Viitala J, Hoffmeyer I (1985) Social-organization in Clethrionomys compared with Microtus and Apodemus—social odors, chemistry and biological effects. Ann Zool Fenn 22:359–371Google Scholar
  48. Ward SA (1987) Optimal habitat selection in time-limited dispersers. Am Nat 129:568–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petter Glorvigen
    • 1
  • Ottar N. Bjørnstad
    • 2
  • Harry P. Andreassen
    • 1
  • Rolf A. Ims
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural SciencesHedmark University CollegeKoppangNorway
  2. 2.Department of Entomology and BiologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations