Advertisement

acta ethologica

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 29–38 | Cite as

Behavioral response of the endemic Martino’s vole Dinaromys bogdanovi (Martino 1922) to environmental complexity

  • Maša Ljuština
  • Lea Vidatić
  • Toni Safner
  • Igor Ivanek
  • Ivan Budinski
  • Maja Damjanović
  • Maja Lukač
  • Duje LisičićEmail author
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

The Martino’s vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi) is a rare species that lives in differently structured karst habitats, varying from open rocky plains to deep fissures, mostly residing under boulders and in crevices. Populations of the species are declining, probably due to its strict habitat preferences and competition with the European snow vole. Since the species is difficult to study in the wild, we tested its behavioral response to a differently complex environment and novel object presence in captivity. We exposed 14 individuals to differentially complex setups, from open and unsheltered to rocky with covered tunnels. We measured the effect of the presented setup and season on vole behavior. Analysis showed seasonal differences with higher movement frequency and longer time spent still during the breeding season, and a higher number of attempts due to the lack of vole entry into the experimental terrarium in the non-breeding season. Additionally, movement significantly differentiated between an open and simple setup in comparison to more complex ones, with higher frequencies of moving and peeping and the duration of peeping in the simple setup, indicating restlessness. We also found significant differences between the novel object and control setup. The results of this study could be useful for future assessment of the influence of habitat complexity on mobility in the wild. Moreover, this is the first study on the behavior of this endemic and rare rodent.

Keywords

Behavioral study Captive research Environmental complexity Habitat specialist Novel object Martino’s vole 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Zoological Garden of Zagreb for caring for the animals and for their generous support of this research. We would also like to thank students Matea Kovač, Lucija Ivić, and Marko Bračić for their contributions to this study. We thank Sofia Ana Blažević for her suggestions to improve the manuscript. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that considerably improved the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Barnett SA (1958) Experiments on ‘Neophobia’ in wild and laboratory rats. Br J Psychol 49:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett SA (1976) The rat: a study in behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Revised editionGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett SA, Cowan PE (1976) Activity, exploration, curiosity and fear: An ethological study. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 1: 43–62.  https://doi.org/10.1179/030801876789768534
  4. Barret GW, Peles JD (1999) Landscape ecology of small mammals. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger-Tal O, Polak T, Oron A, Lubin Y, Kotler BP, Saltz D (2011) Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: a conceptual framework. Behav Ecol 22(2):236–239.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birke LAI, D' Udine B, Albonetti ME (1985) The exploratory behavior of two species of murid rodents, Acomys cahirinus and Mus musculus: a comparative study. Behav Neural Biol 43:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bužan EV, Kryštufek B, Bryja J (2010) Microsatellite markers confirm extensive population fragmentation of the endangered Balkan palaeoendemic Martino’s vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi). Conserv Genet 11:1783–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne RW (2013) Animal curiosity. Curr Biol 23:469–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ 9:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corkum LD, Cronin DJ (2004) Habitat complexity reduces aggression and enhances consumption in crayfish. J Ethol 22:23–27, Japan Ethological Society and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2003.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-003-0095-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eccard JA, Herde A (2013) Seasonal variation in the behavior of a short-lived rodent. BMC Ecol 13:43 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/13/43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edut S, Eilam D (2003) Rodents in open space adjust their behavioral response to the different risk levels during barn-owl attack. BMC Ecol 3:10. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/3/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frynta D (1994) Exploratory behavior in 12 Palaearctic mice species (Rodentia: Muridae): a comparative study using “free exploration” tests. Acta Soc Zool Bohem 57:173–182Google Scholar
  14. Garner JP (2005) Stereotypies and other abnormal repetitive behaviors: potential impact on validity, reliability, and replicability of scientific outcomes. ILAR J 46(2):106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.46.2.106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Genaro G, Schmidek WR (2000) Exploratory activity of rats in three different environments. Ethology 106:849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gippoliti S, Amori G (2007) Beyond threatened species and reintroduction: establishing priorities for conservation and breeding programmes for European rodents in zoos. Int Zoo Yearb 41:194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray SJ, Hurst JL, Stidworthy R, Smith J, Preston R, MacDougall R (1998) Microhabitat and spatial dispersion of the grassland mouse (Mus spretus Lataste). J Zool (Lond) 246:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray SJ, Plesner Jensen S, Hurst JL (2000) Structural complexity of territories: preference, use of space and defence in commensal house mice, Mus domesticus. Anim Beav 60:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halle S, Stenseth NC (2000) Activity patterns in small mammals: an ecological approach. Ecological studies. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ (2009) Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models. In: Warnik JE, Kauleff AV (eds) Translational Neuroscience. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, Hauppauge, pp 71–82Google Scholar
  21. Hoset KS, Le Galliard JF, Gundersen G, Steen G (2007) Home range size and overlap in female root voles: effects of season and density. Behav Ecol 19:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosey GR, Melfi V, Pankhurst S (2009) Zoo Animals: Behavior, Management, and Welfare. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen SP, Gray SJ, Hurst JL (2003) How does habitat structure affect activity and use of space among house mice? Anim Behav 66:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klejbor I, Turlejski K (2012) Different strategies of exploration and phenotypic variability of the locomotor behavior in new environment: comparative study of the laboratory opossum (Monodelphis domestica) and Wistar rat (Rattus norvegicus). Acta Neurobiol Exp 72:452–460Google Scholar
  25. Klenovšek T, Jojić V (2016) Modularity and cranial integration across ontogenetic stages in Martino’s vole, Dinaromys bogdanovi. Contrib Zool 85(3)Google Scholar
  26. Kryštufek B (2008) Dinaromys bogdanovi. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2008: e.T6607A12790367.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T6607A12790367.en
  27. Kryštufek B, Bužan EV (2008) Rarity and decline in palaeoendemic Martino’s vole Dinaromys bogdanovi. Mammal Rev 38(4):267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kryštufek B, Tvrtković N (1988) Insectivores and rodents of the central Dinaric karst of Yugoslavia. Scopolia 15:1–59Google Scholar
  29. Kryštufek B, Kolarič K, Paunović M (2000) Age determination and age structure in Martino's vole Dinaromys bogdanovi. Mammalia 64(3):361–370Google Scholar
  30. Kryštufek B, Bužan EV, Hutchuinson WF, Hänfling B (2007) Phylogeography of the rare Balkan endemic Martino's vole, Dinaromys bogdanovi, reveals strong differentiation within the western Balkan Peninsula. Mol Ecol 16:1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kryštufek B, Vohralik V, Obuch J (2009) Endemism, vulnerability and conservation issues for small terrestrial mammals from the Balkans and Anatolia. Folia Zool 58(3):291–302Google Scholar
  32. Kryštufek B, Engelberger S, Muzaferović Š, Bužan EV, Skok J, Škrijelj R, Herzig-Straschil B (2010) Assessing population size of Martino’s vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi) in Central Bosnia. Hystrix 21(2):165–169Google Scholar
  33. Kryštufek B, Klenovšek T, Bužan EV, Loy A, Janžekovič F (2012) Cranial divergence among evolutionary lineages of Martino’s vole, Dinaromys bogdanovi, a rare Balkan paleoendemic rodent. J Mammal 93(3):818–825.  https://doi.org/10.1644/11-MAMM-A-260.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leonard ST, Ferkin MH (2005) Seasonal differences in self-grooming in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Acta Ethol 8:86–91Google Scholar
  35. Lodewijckx E (1984) Seasonal fluctuations in the exploratory behavior and in the activity of wild wood mice. Acta Theriol 29:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luque-Larena JJ, López P, Gosálbez J (2001) Scent matching modulates space use and agonistic behavior between male snow voles, Chionomys nivalis. Anim Behav 62:1089–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luque-Larena JJ, López P, Gosálbez J (2002a) Microhabitat use by the snow vole Chionomys nivalis in alpine environments reflects rock-dwelling preferences. Can J Zool 80(1):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luque-Larena JJ, López P, Gosálbez J (2002b) Relative dominance affects use of scent-marked areas in male snow voles Chionomys nivalis. Ethology 108:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malenica M (2011) Ethogram of the Martino’s snow vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi Martino, 1922). Graduation thesis. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  40. Mandelik Y, Jones M, Dayan T (2003) Structurally complex habitat and sensory adaptations mediate the behavioral responses of a desert rodent to an indirect cue for increased predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 5:501–515Google Scholar
  41. Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behavior, an introductory guide, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niederer A (2007) Das Verhalten der Schneemaus (Chionomys nivalis). PhD thesis, Philosophisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität BaselGoogle Scholar
  43. Oosthuizen MK, Scheibler AG, Charles Bennett N, Amrein I (2013) Effects of laboratory housing on exploratory behavior, novelty discrimination and spatial reference memory in a subterranean, solitary rodent, the cape mole-rat (Georychus capensis). PLoS One 8(9):e75863.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Péter A (2016) Solomon Coder beta 16.06.26. http://solomoncoder.com
  45. Petren K, Case TJ (1998) Habitat structure determines competition intensity and invasion success in gecko lizards. Ecology 95:11739–11744Google Scholar
  46. Petrov B, Todorović M (1982) Dinaromys bogdanovi (V. et E. Martino, 1922). In: Niethammer J, Krapp F (eds) Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas, Band 2/1: 193–208. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  47. Pisula W, Siegel J (2005) Exploratory behavior as a function of environmental novelty and complexity in male and female rats. Psychol Rep 97(2):631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pisula W, Turlejski K, Stryjek R, Nalecz-Tolak A, Grabiec M, Dajavadian RL (2012) Response to novelty in the laboratory Wistar rat, wild-captive WWCPS rat, and the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica). Behav Process 91(2):145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  50. SAS Institute Inc (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 User_s Guide. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Semeniuk CAD, Musiani M, Marceau DJ (2011) Integrating spatial behavioral ecology in agent-based models for species conservation. Sofo A Biodiversity InTech, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5772/23055. http://www.intechopen.com/books/biodiversity/integrating-spatial-behavioral-ecology-in-agent-based-models-for-species-conservation
  52. Stryjek R, Modlin K, Pisula W (2012) Species specific behavioural patterns (digging and swimming) and reaction to novel objects in wild type, Wistar, Sprague-Dawley and Brown Norway rats. PLoS One 7:e40642.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sutherland WJ (1998) The importance of behavioral studies in conservation biology. Anim Behav 56:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tvrtković N et al (2006) Red Book of Mammals of Croatia. Ministry of Culture, State Institute for Nature Protection, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  55. Urbaniak GC, Plous S (2013) Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. http://www.randomizer.org/
  56. Uster HJ, Battlg K, Nageli HH (1976) Effects of maze geometry and experience on exploratory behavior in the rat. Anim Learn Behav i1(1A):84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webster DG, Williams MH, Owens RD, Geiger VB, Dewsbury A (1981) Digging behavior in 12 taxa of muroid rodents. Anim Learn Behav 9(2):173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S, Nitsch RM, Lipp HP, Würbel H (2004) Laboratory animal welfare: cage enrichment and mouse behavior. Nature 432:821–822.  https://doi.org/10.1038/432821a CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISPA, CRL 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Plant Breeding, Genetics and Biometrics, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Zoological Garden of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Association BIOMZagrebCroatia
  5. 5.Department of Poultry Diseases with Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations