Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 65–71 | Cite as

Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus

  • Dale M. Madison
Article

Summary

Free-ranging, sexually mature meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) were tracked by using radiotelemetry from June through August in Front Royal, Virginia, U.S.A. Estimates of intraspecific spacing were derived from the concurrent movements of up to 16 voles. Positions were recorded hourly for 24 h, twice per week. A total of 16 male and 15 female voles were studied during sixteen 24-h sessions.

The daily ranges of males (192.3±109.7 m2) were larger and more variable than those of females (68.6±39.4 m2). Males also changed locations more frequently (Fig. 2).

Adult females usually maintained territories free of other females; males overlapped considerably among themselves (Fig. 2). Males temporarily moved into the areas occupied by estrous females, indicating intrasexual competition among males for access to receptive females (Fig. 3).

M. pennsylvanicus appears to be promiscuous, is socially organized into territorial, maternal-young units during the breeding season, and fits the female territorial model of population regulation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambrose III HW (1973) An experimental study of some factors affecting the spatial and temporal activity of Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 54:79–100Google Scholar
  2. Banks E, Brooks RJ, Schnell J (1975) A radiotracking study of home range and activity of the brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus). J Mammal 56:888–901Google Scholar
  3. Bujalska G (1973) The role of spacing behaviour among females in the regulation of reproduction in the bank vole. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 19:465–474Google Scholar
  4. Calhoun JB (1963) The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. US Public Health Serv Publ 1008:1–288Google Scholar
  5. Caplis P (1977) Neighbor recognition by the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and the role of olfactory cues. MS thesis, McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Christian JJ (1971) fighting, maturity and population density in Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 52:556–567Google Scholar
  7. Christian JJ, Davis DE (1964) Endocrines, behavior, and population. Science 146:1550–1560Google Scholar
  8. Dalke PD (1942) The cottontail rabbits in Connecticut. Conn State Geol Nat Hist Surv Bull 65:1–97Google Scholar
  9. Eisenberg J (1966) The social organizations of mammals. Handbuch der Zoologie 8, part 10, sect 7, pp 1–92Google Scholar
  10. Emlen ST (1976) Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:283–313Google Scholar
  11. Frank F (1957) The causality of microtine cycles in Germany. J Wildl Manage 21:113–121Google Scholar
  12. Getz LL (1961) Home ranges, territory, and movement of the meadow vole. J Mammal 42:24–36Google Scholar
  13. Getz LL (1972) Social structure and aggressive behavior in a population of Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 53:310–317Google Scholar
  14. Getz LL (1978) Speculation on social structure and population cycles of microtine rodents. biologist 60:134–147Google Scholar
  15. Gleason PE, Michael SE (1979) Infanticide — a reproductive strategy of female Peromyscus leucopus (abst). Anim Behav Soc Northeast Reg Meet Woods HoleGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray DG, Dewsbury DA (1975) A quantitative description of the copulatory behaviour of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Anim Behav 23:261–267Google Scholar
  17. Hamley JM, Falls JB (1975) Reduced activity in transmitter-carrying voles. Can J Zool 53:1476–1478Google Scholar
  18. Hayne DW (1949) Calculation of size of home range. J Mammal 30:1–18Google Scholar
  19. Jannett FJ Jr (1978) The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanus nanus. Behav Ecol Socibiol 3:245–263Google Scholar
  20. Kleiman DG (1977) Monogramy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 52:39–69Google Scholar
  21. Krebs CJ (1978) A review of the Chitty Hypothesis of population regulation. Can J Zool 56:2463–2480Google Scholar
  22. Krebs CJ, Myers JH (1974) Population cycles in small mammals. Adv Ecol Res 8:267–399Google Scholar
  23. Madison D (1977) Movements and habitat use among interacting Peromyscus leucopus as revealed by radiotelemetry. Can Field Nat 91:273–281Google Scholar
  24. Madison D (1978a) Movement indicators of reproductive events among female meadow voles as revealed by radiotelemetry. J Mammal 59:835–843Google Scholar
  25. Madison D (1978b) Behavioral and sociochemical susceptibility of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) to snake predators. Am Midl Nat 100:23–28Google Scholar
  26. Madison D (1979) Impact of spacing behavior and predation on population growth in meadow voles. In: Byers RE (ed) Proceedings of the third eastern pine and meadow vole symposium. New Paltz, New York, pp 20–29Google Scholar
  27. Mallory FF, Brooks RJ (1978) Infanticide and other reproductive strategies in the collared lemming, Dicrostonyx groenlandicus. Nature 273:144–146Google Scholar
  28. McElman JF, Morris RD (1977) Patterns of behaviour and outcomes of staged laboratory encounters between two vole species. Oikos 28:276–284Google Scholar
  29. Migula P (1969) Bioenergetics of pregnancy and lactation in the European common vole. Acta Theriol 14:167–179Google Scholar
  30. Pleasants JM, Pleasants BY (1979) The super-territory hypothesis: a critique, or why there are so few bullies. Am Nat 114:609–614Google Scholar
  31. Redfield JA, Taitt MJ, Krebs CJ (1978) Experimental alteration of sex ratios in populations of Microtus townsendii, a field vole. Can J Zool 56:17–27Google Scholar
  32. Rose RK (1979) Levels of wounding in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 60:37–45Google Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas JA, Birney EC (1979) Parental care and mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:171–186Google Scholar
  35. Turner BN, Iverson SL (1973) The annual cycle of aggresion in male Microtus pennsylvanicus, and its relation to population parameters. Ecology 54:967–981Google Scholar
  36. Viitala J (1977) Social organization in cyclic subarctic populations of the voles Clethrionomys rufocanus (Sund.) and Microtus agrestris (L.). Ann Zool Fenn 14:53–93Google Scholar
  37. Watson A, Moss R (1970) Dominance, spacing behaviour and aggression in ralation to population limitation in vertebrates. In: Watson A (ed) Animal populations in ralation to their food resources. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 167–218Google Scholar
  38. Webster B (1979) A radiotelemetry study of social behavior and activity of free-ranging meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. MS thesis, University of GuelphGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dale M. Madison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesState University of New York at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations