Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 95–100 | Cite as

Friends and strangers: a test of the Charnov-Finerty Hypothesis

  • Rudy Boonstra
  • Ian Hogg
Original Papers

Summary

We tested the hypothesis that populations composed of unrelated animals should perform worse than those composed of related animals by setting up two moderatedly dense field populations in adjacent enclosures: one was composed of related females and one of unrelated females; both had unrelated males. The survival and reproductive success of a number of litters located by spooling were determined. Final population size, pregnancy success, number of young recruited per pregnancy, and survival were similar in both populations. Thus, differences in relatedness produced no differences in demography. We conclude that the Charnov-Finerty Hypothesis in unlikely to be an explanation for microtine population fluctuations.

Key words

Charnov-Finerty Hypothesis Population cycles Voles Dispersal Kin selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baird DD, Birney EC (1982) Pattern of colonization in Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 63:290–293Google Scholar
  2. Bekoff M (1981) Vole population cycles: kin-selection or familiarity? Oecologia (Berlin) 48:131Google Scholar
  3. Blaustein AR, Bekoff M, Daniels TJ (1987) Kin recognition in vertebrates (excluding primates) empirical evidence. In: Fletcher DJC, Michener CD (eds) Kin recognition in animals. Wiley, New York, pp 287–331Google Scholar
  4. Boonstra R (1978) Effect of adult Townsend voles (Microtus townsendii) on survival of young. Ecology 59:242–248Google Scholar
  5. Boonstra R, Boag PT (1987) A test of the Chitty Hypothesis: inheritance of life-history traits in meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 41:929–947Google Scholar
  6. Boonstra R, Craine ITM (1986) Natal nest location and small mammal tracking with a spool-and-line technique. Can J Zool 64:1034–1036Google Scholar
  7. Boonstra R, Rodd FH (1983) Regulation of breeding density of Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Anim Ecol 52:757–784Google Scholar
  8. Boonstra R, Krebs CJ, Gaines MS, Johnson ML, Craine ITM (1987) Natal philopatry and breeding systems in voles (Microtus spp.). J Anim Ecol 56:655–673Google Scholar
  9. Boyd SK, Blaustein AR (1985) Familiarity and inbreeding avoidance in the gray-tailed vole (Microtus canicaudus). J Mammal 66:348–352Google Scholar
  10. Brown RZ (1953) Social behaviour, reproduction, and population changes in the house mouse (Mus musculus L.) Ecol Monogr 23:217–240Google Scholar
  11. Caley J, Boutin S (1985) Infanticide in wild populations of Ondatra zibethicus and Microtus pennsylvanicus. Anim Behav 33:1036–1037Google Scholar
  12. Caley MJ, Boutin S (1987) Sibling and neighbour recognition in wild juvenile muskrats. Anim Behav 35:60–66Google Scholar
  13. Carothers AD (1973) Capture-recapture methods applied to a population with known parameters. J Anim Ecol 42:125–146Google Scholar
  14. Charnov EL, Finerty JP (1980) Vole population cycles: a case for kin-selection. Oecologia (Berlin) 45:1–2Google Scholar
  15. Clarke JR (1965) Influence of numbers on reproduction and survival in two experimental vole populations. Proc R Soc London Ser B 144:68–85Google Scholar
  16. Craine ITM, Boonstra R (1986) Myiasis by Wohlfahrtia vigil in nestling Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Wildl Dis 22:587–589Google Scholar
  17. Danielson BJ, Gaines MS (1987) The influence of conspecific and heterospecific residents on colonization. Ecology 68:1778–1784Google Scholar
  18. De Kock LL, Rohn I (1972) Intra-specific behaviour during the upswing of groups of Norway lemmings, kept under semi-natural conditions. Z Tierpsychol 30:405–415Google Scholar
  19. Gaines MS, Johnson ML (1987) Phenotypic and genotypic mechanisms for dispersal in Microtus populations and the role of dispersal in population regulation. Am Zool (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Gavish L, Hoffman JE, Getz LL (1984) Sibling recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 32:362–366Google Scholar
  21. Grau JH (1982) Kin recognition in white-footed deermice (Peromyscus leucopus. Anim Behav 30:497–505Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior. I and II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton WJ (1941) Reproduction of the field mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus (Ord). Cornell Univ Agr Exp Stat Memoir 237:1–23Google Scholar
  24. Holmes WG, Sherman PW (1982) The ontogeny of kin recognition in two species of ground squirrels. Am Zool 22:491–517Google Scholar
  25. Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1987) The selective basis for dispersal of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Ecology 68:684–694Google Scholar
  26. Kawata M (1987) The effect of kinship on spacing among female red-backed voles, Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae. Oecologia (Berlin) 72:115–122Google Scholar
  27. Krebs CJ (1971) Genetic and behavioral studies on fluctuating vole populations. In: Den Boer PJ, Gradwell GR (eds) Dynamics of populations. Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute on Dynamics of Numbers in Populations, Oosterbeek, Netherlands, pp 243–256Google Scholar
  28. Krebs CJ (1985) Do changes in spacing behaviour drive population cycles in small mammals? In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour, Symp 25. Br Ecol Soc, pp 295–312Google Scholar
  29. Krebs CJ (1988) Are lemmings large Microtus or small reindeer? A review of lemming cycles after 25 years. Biol Journal Linn Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Krebs CJ, Boonstra R (1984) Trappability estimates for markrecapture data. Can J Zool 62:2440–2444Google Scholar
  31. Krebs CJ, Myers JH (1974) Population cycles in small mammals. Adv Ecol Res 8:267–399Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Krebs CJ, Wingate I, LeDuc J, Redfield JA, Taitt M, Hilborn R (1976) Microtus population biology: dispersal in fluctuating populations of M. townsendii. Can J Zool 54:79–95Google Scholar
  34. Lidicker WZ Jr (1985) Dispersal. In: Tamarin RH (ed) Biology of New World Microtus. Spec Publ Am Soc Mammal 8:420–454Google Scholar
  35. Madison DM (1980) Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:65–71Google Scholar
  36. McShea WJ, Madison DM (1984) Communal nesting between reproductively active females in a spring population of Microtus pennsylvanicus. Can J Zool 62:344–346Google Scholar
  37. McShea WJ, Madison DM (1987) Partial mortality in nestling meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Anim Behav 35:1253–1255Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rodd FH, Boonstra R (1988) Effects of adult meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus on young conspecifics in field populations. J Anim Ecol 57:(in press)Google Scholar
  40. Semb-Johansson A, Wiger R, Engh CE (1979) Dynamics of two freely growing confined populations of the Norwegian lemming Lemmus lemmus. Oikos 33:246–260Google Scholar
  41. Stenseth NC (1983) Causes and consequences of dispersal in small mammals. In: Swingland IR, Greenwood PJ (eds) The Ecology of animal movement. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, pp 63–101Google Scholar
  42. Taitt MJ, Krebs CJ (1985) Population dynamics and cycles. Spec Publ Am Soc Mammal 8:567–620Google Scholar
  43. Tamarin RH, Sheridan M (1987) Behavior-genetic mechanisms of population regulation in microtine rodents. 27:921–927Google Scholar
  44. Tamarin RH, Reich LM, Moyer CA (1984) Meadow vole cycles within fences. Can J Zool 62:1796–1804Google Scholar
  45. Verner L, Getz LL (1985) Significance of dispersal in fluctuating populations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 66:338–347Google Scholar
  46. Warkowska-Dratnal H, Stenseth N (1985) Dispersal and the microtine cycle: Comparison of two hypotheses. Oecologia (Berlin) 65:468–477Google Scholar
  47. Webster AB, Brooks RJ (1981) Social behavior of Microtus pennsylvanicus in relation to seasonal changes in demography. J Mammal 62:738–751Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rudy Boonstra
    • 1
  • Ian Hogg
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Life Sciences, Scarborough CampusUniversity of TorontoScarboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations