Oecologia

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 531–536 | Cite as

Is space management of female meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) related to nutritive quality of plants?

  • Jean-Marie Bergeron
  • Richard Brunet
  • Louise Jodoin
Original Papers

Summary

It is thought by many (see Ims 1987 for review; Desy and Batzli 1989) that high quality food regulate population processes, territoriality and mating systems among small herbivores like meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). We thought that comparisons of nutritive components from selected plants eaten by sexually active and inactive voles, as well as between territorial and non territorial sexually active females would bring some light into these theoretical considerations. Sexually active females did have a higher diet quality over inactive ones and over active and inactive males. Nutritive components of selected species from territorial reproductive females did not vary significantly from those of the non territorial females the year of higher crowding conditions but they varied significantly the following year when population density of voles was much lower. This decline in food quality coincided with a switch in food selection. Since there were only eight plant species involved in such processes, we think that crowding condition and availability of high quality food are two factors involved concurrently in space management and territoriality among voles.

Key words

Space management Food selection Females Food quality Territoriality-Microtus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Batzli GO (1983) Responses of arctic rodents to nutritional factors. Oikos 40: 396–406Google Scholar
  2. Batzli GO, Pitelka FA (1971) Condition and diet of cycling populations of the California vole, Microtus californicus. J Mammal 52: 141–163Google Scholar
  3. Belovsky GE (1984) Herbivore optimal foraging: a comparative test for three models. Am Nat 124: 97–115Google Scholar
  4. Berger PJ, Sanders EH, Gardner PD, Negus NC (1977) Phenolic plant compounds functioning as reproductive inhibitors in Microtus montanus. Science 195: 575–577Google Scholar
  5. Bergeron JM, Jodoin L (1987) Defining “high quality” food resources of herbivores: the case for meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Oecologia 71: 510–517Google Scholar
  6. Bergeron JM, Jodoin L (1989) Patterns of resource use, food quality, and health status of voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) trapped from fluctuating populations. Oecologia 79: 306–314Google Scholar
  7. Boonstra R, Krebs CJ (1979) Viability of large- and small-sized adults in fluctuating vole populations. Ecology 60: 567–573Google Scholar
  8. Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 6: 160–169Google Scholar
  9. Bujalska G (1985) Regulation of female maturation in Clethrionomys spp. with special reference to an island population of C. glareolus. Ann Zool Fenn 22: 331–342Google Scholar
  10. Davies NB (1978) Ecological questions about territorial behavior. PP: 217–350. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassGoogle Scholar
  11. Desy EA, Batzli GO (1989) Effects of food availability and predation on prairie vole demography: a field experiment. Ecology 70: 411–421Google Scholar
  12. Eisenberg JF (1966) The social organization of mammals. Handb Zool Band 8, Lief 39(10): 1–92Google Scholar
  13. Eisenberg JF (1981) The mammalian radiation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleming TH (1979) Life-history strategies. In: Stoddart DM (ed) Ecology of small mammals. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  15. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Gipps JHW (1985) Spacing behavior and male reproductive ecology in voles of the genus Clethrionomys. Ann Zool Fenn 22: 343–351Google Scholar
  17. Heasley JE (1983) Energy allocation in response to reduced food intake in pregnant and lactating laboratory mice. Acta Theriol 28(4): 55–71Google Scholar
  18. Heske EJ (1987) spatial structuring and dispersal in a high density population of the California vole Microtus californicus. Holarct Ecol 56: 585–596Google Scholar
  19. Hillborn R, Redfield JA, Krebs CJ (1976) On the reliability of enumeration for mark and recapture census of voles. Can J Zool 54: 1019–1024Google Scholar
  20. Ims RA (1987) Male spacing systems in microtine rodents. Am Nat 130: 475–484Google Scholar
  21. Jones EN (1990) The effect of forage availability on the home range and population density of Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mann (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Kaufmann JJ (1983) On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 58: 1–20Google Scholar
  23. Krebs CJ, Keller BL, Tamarin RH (1969) Microtus population biology: demographic changes in fluctuating populations of M. ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in southern Indiana. Ecology 50: 587–607Google Scholar
  24. Lott DF (1984) Intraspecific variation in the social systems of wild vertebrates. Behavior 88: 266–325Google Scholar
  25. Madison DM (1980) Space use and social structure in meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7: 65–71Google Scholar
  26. McKey DB, Gartlan JS, Waterman PG, Choo GM (1981) Food selection by black colobus monkeys (Colobus satanas) in relation to plant chemistry. Biol J Linn Soc 16: 115–146Google Scholar
  27. Milton K (1979) Factors influencing leaf choice by howler monkey: a test of some hypotheses of food selection by generalist herbivores. Am Nat 114: 362–378Google Scholar
  28. Neal BR, Pulkinen DA, Owen DB (1973) A comparison of fecal and stomach contents analysis in the meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can J Zool 51: 715–721Google Scholar
  29. Ostfeld RS (1986) Territoriality and mating system of California voles. J Anim Ecol 55: 691–706Google Scholar
  30. Renzulli CB, Flowers JF, Tamarin RH (1980) The effects of trapping design on demographic estimates in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Am Nat 104: 397–401Google Scholar
  31. Saitoh T (1985) Practical definition of territory and its application to the spatial distribution of voles. J Ethol (Kyoto) 3: 143–149Google Scholar
  32. Tamarin RH, Reich LM, Moyer CA (1980) Meadow vole cycle within fences. Can J Zool 62: 1796–1804Google Scholar
  33. Voth EV, Black HC (1973) A histological technique for determining feeding habits of small herbivores. J Wildl Manage 37: 223–231Google Scholar
  34. White TCR (1978) The importance of a relative shortage of food in animal ecology. Oecologia 33: 71–86Google Scholar
  35. Wolff JO, Lidicker WZ Jr (1980) Population ecology of the taiga vole (Microtus xanthognathus) in interior Alaska. Can J Zool 58: 1800–1812Google Scholar
  36. Wrangham RW (1980) An ecological model for female-bonded primate groups. Behavior 75: 262–300Google Scholar
  37. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marie Bergeron
    • 1
  • Richard Brunet
    • 1
  • Louise Jodoin
    • 1
  1. 1.Groupe de Recherche en Énergétique, Nutrition et Écologie, Département de BiologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations