Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 17–21 | Cite as

Changes in foraging behavior of two species of field mice,Apodemus speciosus Temminck andA. argenteus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae), in the response to artificial illumination

  • Koichi Sone
Original Articles


Predation hazard is one of the most important factors that affect foraging behavior. Light intensity is an indirect measure of a predation hazard for nocturnal rodents. In 1988 and 1989, I conducted laboratory experiments to reveal the effects of the predation hazard on foraging behavior of two species of field mice,Apodemus speciosus Temminck andA. argenteus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae), which co-exist in many areas in Japan. I released a mouse into the experimental arena, where I set one nest box and two food stations (one near and the other far from the nest box), and recorded the foraging behavior for sixA. speciosus and sixA. argenteus mice. I planned to illuminate the experimental arena when the mouse left the nest box to mimic a predation hazard during excursion. The light treatment decreased the time the mouse spend outside the nest box, the duration of an excursion, the number of visits to the food station far from the nest box, and the number of peanuts handled at the food station far away. Mice handled food more intensely at the food station near to the nest box and tended to carry more foods back to the nest box and eat them there during the light treatment period than the control period. These behavioral changes, which seemed to be adaptive to avoid the predation hazard in the field, were more apparent in smaller mice,A. argenteus, than larger mice,A. speciosus.

Key words

Apodemus mice artificial illumination behavioral responses foraging behavior predation hazard 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Brown, J.S., Kotler, B.P., Smith, J.R., and Wirtz II, W.O. (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76: 408–415Google Scholar
  2. Clark, B.K. and Kaufman, D.W. (1991) Effects of plant litter on foraging and nesting behavior of prairie rodents. J. Mammal. 72: 502–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, J.A. (1983) Moonlight’s influence on predator/prey interactions between short-eared owls (Asio flamineus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13: 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly, M., Wilson, M.I., Behrends, P.R., and Jacobs, L.F. (1992) Characteristics of kangaroo rats,Dipodomys merriani, associated with different predation risk. Anim. Behav. 40: 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doi, T. and Iwamoto, T. (1982) Local distribution of two species ofApodemus in Kyushu. Res. Popul. Ecol. 24: 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kotler, B.P. (1984a) Harvesting rates and predatory risk in desert rodents: A comparison of two communities on different continents. J. Mammal. 65: 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kotler, B.P. (1984b) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65: 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kotler, B.P., Brown, J.S., and Hasson, O. (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rate of owl predation. Ecology 72: 2249–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kotler, B.P., Brown, J.S., Smith, J.R., and Wirtz II, W.O. (1988) The effects of morphology and body size on rates of owl predation on desert rodents. Oikos 53: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lima, S.L. and Dill, L.M. (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospects. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Longland, W.S. and Price, M.V. (1991) Direct observations of owls and heteromyid rodents: Can predation risk explain microhabitat use? Ecology 72: 2261–2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Newman, J.A. and Caraco, T. (1987) Foraging, predation hazard and patch use in grey squirrels. Anim. Behav. 35: 1804–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman, J.A., Recer, G.M., Zwicker, S.M., and Caraco, T. (1988) Effects of predation hazard on foraging “constraints”: Patch-use strategies in grey squirrels. Oikos 53: 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nishimura, K. and Abe, M. (1988) Prey susceptibilities, prey utilization and variable attack efficiencies of Ural owls. Oecologia 77: 414–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Phelon, J.P. and Baker, R.H. (1992) Optimal foraging inPeromyscus polinotus: The influence of item-size and predation risk. Behaviour 121: 95–109.Google Scholar
  16. Shioya, K., Shiraishi, S., and Uchida, T. (1990) Microhabitat segregation betweenApodemus argenteus andA. speciosus in northern Kyushu. J. Mammal. Soc. Jpn. 14: 105–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Forest Society and Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations