, Volume 99, Issue 10, pp 801–809 | Cite as

The plant physical features selected by wildcats as signal posts: an economic approach to fecal marking

Original Paper


The chemical signals of solitary and territorial felid species are essential for their intraspecific communication. We studied the selection of plant substrates during the fecal marking behavior of the European wildcat Felis silvestris from September 2008 to June 2009 in a protected area in Northwest Spain. The aim of the study was to examine the selection of plants as signal posts with respect to their physical characteristics. We hypothesized that wildcats deposit their fecal marks on plants with physical characteristics (e.g., size, species, and visual conspicuousness) that enhance the olfactory and visual effectiveness of the signal. Our results indicate that diameter, plant group, visual conspicuousness, and interaction between the diameter and plant group influence the decision of wildcats to deposit their fecal marks on plants. The wildcats chose plants with greater diameters and greater visual conspicuousness as scent-marking posts. Moreover, the wildcats chose woody and herbaceous plants, and certain plant species were marked more frequently than expected at random. Indeed, our results indicate that the fecal marks were not randomly distributed on the plants: the wildcats chose to place their marks on plants with certain physical characteristics that maximized the detectability of the signal by intruders and potential mates, thus facilitating the spatial distribution of the species.


Diameter Fecal marking Height Plant species Visual conspicuousness Wildcats 

Supplementary material

114_2012_962_MOESM1_ESM.doc (256 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 256 kb)


  1. Alberts AC (1992) Constraints on the design of chemical communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. Am Nat 139:62–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen KF, Vulpius T (1999) Urinary volatile constituents of the lion, Panthera leo. Chem Senses 24:179–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barja I (2009) Decision making in plant selection during the faecal-marking behaviour of wild wolves. Anim Behav 77:489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barja I, Bárcena F (2005) Distribución y abundancia del gato montés (Felis silvestris) en un área protegida de Galicia (NO España): factores de hábitat implicados y relación con la presencia de zorro y marta. Galemys 17:29–40Google Scholar
  5. Barja I, de Miguel FJ, Bárcena F (2001) Distribución espacial de los excrementos de zorro rojo (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus 1758) en los Montes do Invernadeiro (Ourense). Galemys 13:171–178Google Scholar
  6. Barja I, de Miguel FJ, Bárcena F (2004) Importance of the crossroads in faecal marking behaviour of the wolves (Canis lupus). Naturwissenschaften 91:489–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barja I, de Miguel FJ, Bárcena F (2005) Faecal marking behaviour of Iberian wolf in different zones of their territory. Folia Zool 54:21–29Google Scholar
  8. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (1996–2004) GENETIX 4.05, logiciel sous Windows, pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  9. Bicca-Marques JC, Garber PA (2004) Use of spatial, visual, and olfactory information during foraging in wild nocturnal and diurnal anthropoids: a field experiment comparing Aotus, Callicebus, and Saguinus. Am J Primatol 62:171–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossert WH, Wilson EO (1963) Analysis of olfactory communication among animals. J Theor Biol 5:443–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bothma JdP, le Riche EAN (1995) Evidence of the use of rubbing, scent-marking and scratching-posts by Kalahari leopards. J Arid Environ 29:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowyer RT, Van Ballenberghe V, Rock KR (1994) Scent marking by Alaska moose: characteristics and spatial distribution of rubbed trees. Can J Zool 72:2186–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broomhall LS, Mills MGL, du Toit JT (2003) Home range and habitat use by cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in the Kruger National Park. J Zool 261:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown RE, Macdonald DW (1985) Social odours in mammals. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Castroviejo S (1977) Estudio sobre la vegetación de la Sierra del Invernadeiro (Ourense). ICONA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheng K, Spetch ML (1998) Mechanisms of landmark use in mammals and birds. In: Healy S (ed) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  18. Clevenger AP, Purroy FJ (1991) Ecología del Oso Pardo en España. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  19. Corbett LK (1979) The food of wild cats (Felis silvestris) and domestic cats (Felis catus) in Scotland. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Davison A, Birks JDS, Brookes RC, Braithwaite TC, Messenger JE (2002) On the origin of faeces: morphological versus molecular methods for surveying rare carnivores from their scats. J Zool 257:141–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De León A, Minguez E, Belliure B (2003) Self-odour recognition in European Storm-petrel chicks. Behaviour 140:925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eaton RL (1970) Group interactions, spacing and territoriality in cheetahs. Z Tierpsychol 27:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenberg JF, Kleiman DG (1972) Olfactory communication in mammals. A Rev Ecol Syst 3:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Emmons LH (1988) A field study of ocelots (Felis pardalis) in Peru. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 43:133–157Google Scholar
  25. Engel C (2003) Wild health: lessons in natural wellness from the animal kingdom. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Etienne AS, Maurer R, Georgakopoulos J, Griffin A (1999) Dead reckoning (path integration), landmarks, and representation of space in a comparative perspective. In: Golledge RG (ed) Wayfinding behavior. Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 197–228Google Scholar
  27. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard J (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gorman ML, Trowbridge BJ (1989) The role of odor in the social lives of carnivores. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Cornell University Press, New York, pp 57–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosling LM (1981) Demarcation in a gerenuk territory: an economic approach. Z Tierpsychol 56:305–322Google Scholar
  30. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001) Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Stud Behav 30:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3).
  32. Jacobs J (1974) Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ratio in Ivlev’s effectivity index. Oecologia 14:413–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitchener A (1995) The wildcat. The Mammal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kulvicius T, Tamosiunaite M, Ainge J, Dudchenko P, Wörgötter F (2008) Odor supported place cell model and goal navigation in rodents. J Comput Neurosci 25:481–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavenex P, Schenk F (1996) Integration of olfactory information in a spatial representation enabling accurate arm choice in the radial arm maze. Learn Mem 2:299–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lázaro-Perea C, Snowdon CT, Arruda MF (1999) Scent-mark behavior in wild groups of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis RJ (2005) Sex differences in scent-marking in sifaka: mating conflict or male services? Am J Phys Anthropol 128:389–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipinski MJ, Amigues Y, Blasi M, Broad TE, Cherbonnel C, Cho GJ, Corley S, Daftari P, Delatre DR, Dileanis S, Flynn JM, Grattapaglia D, Guthrie A, Harper C, Karttunen PL, Kimura H, Lewis GM, Longeri M, Meriaux JC, Morita M, Morrin-O’donnell RC, Niini T, Pedersen NC, Perrotta G, Polli M, Rittler S, Schubbert R, Strillacci MG, Van Haeringen H, Van Haeringen W, Lyons LA (2007) An international parentage and identification panel for the domestic cat (Felis catus). Anim Genet 38:371–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lloyd KA (1979) Aspects of the ecology of black and grizzly bears in coastal British Columbia. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  40. Lyall-Watson M (1964) The ethology of food-hoarding in mammals with special reference to the green acouchi, Myoprocta pratti. Dissertation, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Macdonald DW (1980) Patterns of scent marking with urine and faeces amongst carnivore communities. Symp Zool Soc Lond 45:107–139Google Scholar
  42. Mellen JD (1993) A comparative analysis of scent-marking, social and reproductive behaviour in 20 species of small cats (Felis). Am Zool 33:151–166Google Scholar
  43. Mennoti-Raymond MA, O’ Brien S (1995) Evolutionary conservation of ten microsatellites loci in four species of Felidae. J Hered 86:319–322Google Scholar
  44. Menotti-Raymond MA, David VA, Lyons LA et al (1999) A genetic linkage map of microsatellite in the domestic cat (Felis catus). Genomics 57:9–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller KE, Laszlo K, Dietz JM (2003) The role of scent marking in the social communication of wild golden lion tamarins, Leontopithecus rosalia. Anim Behav 65:795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Molteno AJ, Sliwa A, Richardson PRK (1998) The role of scent marking in a free-ranging, female black-footed cat (Felis nigripes). J Zool 245:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller CA, Manser MB (2007) Scent-marking and intrasexual competition in a cooperative carnivore with low reproductive skew. Ethology 114:174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nielsen EE, Bach LA, Kotlicki P (2006) Hybridlab (version 1.0): a program for generating simulated hybrids from population samples. Mol Ecol Notes 6(4):971–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliveira R, Godinho R, Randi E, Alves PC (2008) Hybridization versus conservation: are domestic cats threatening the genetic integrity of wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) in Iberian Peninsula? Phil Trans R Soc Land 363:2953–2961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliveira R, Castro D, Godinho R, Luikart G, Alves PC (2009) Species identification using a simple SSCP analysis of a nuclear gene: application to carnivores of southwest Europe. Conserv Genet 11:1023–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peters RP, Mech LD (1975) Scent-marking in wolves. Am Sci 63:628–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Piñeiro A, Barja I (2011) Trophic strategy of the wildcat (Felis silvestris) in relation to seasonal variation in the availability and vulnerability to capture of Apodemus mice. Mammal Biol 76:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pulgar I (2004) Guía da flora do Parque Natural Montes do Invernadeiro. Consellería de Medio Ambiente. Xunta de Galicia, Ourense, SpainGoogle Scholar
  54. Ralls K (1971) Mammalian scent marking. Science 171:443–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Randi E, Pierpaoli M, Beaumont M, Ragni B, Sforzi A (2001) Genetic identification of wild and domestic cats (Felis silvestris) and their hybrids using Bayesian clustering methods. Mol Biol Evol 18:1679–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richardson PRK (1993) The function of scent marking in territories: a resurrection of the intimidation hypothesis. Trans R Soc S Afr 48:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roberts DC (1997) Selection of scent-marking sites by klipspringers (Oreotragus oreotragus). J Zool 243:555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberts SC, Gosling LM (2001) The economic consequences of advertising scent mark location on territories. Chem Sign Vert 9:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robinson IH, Delibes M (1988) The distribution of faeces by the Spanish lynx (Felis pardina). J Zool 216:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Schaller GB, Jinchu H, Wenshi P, Jing Z (1985) The giant pandas of Wolong. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. Sinsch U (1987) Orientation behaviour of toads (Bufo bufo) displaced from the breeding site. J Comp Physiol 161:715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith JLD, McDougal C, Miquelle D (1989) Scent marking in free-ranging tigers, Panthera tigris. Anim Behav 37:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soler L, Lucherini M, Manfredi C, Ciuccio M, Casanave EB (2009) Characteristics of defecation sites of the Geoffroy’s cat Leopardus geoffroyi. Mastozool Neotrop 16:485–489Google Scholar
  65. Stahl P, Leger F (1992) Le chat sauvage (Felis silvestris, Schreber 1777). In: Artois M, Maurin H (eds) Encyclopédie des Carnivores de France. Société Française pour l’Etude et la Protection des Mammifères (SFEPM), Bohallard, France, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  66. Stahl P, Artois M, Aubert MFA (1988) Organisation spatiale et déplacements des chats forestriers adultes (Felis silvestris Schreber 1777) en Lorraine. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 43:113–132Google Scholar
  67. Steck K, Hansson BS, Knaden M (2011) Desert ants benefit from combining visual and olfactory landmarks. J Exp Biol 214:1307–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sunquist M, Sunquist F (2002) Wild cats of the world. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  69. Tsegaye B, Bekele A, Balakrishnan M (2008) Scent-marking by the African Civet Civettictis civetta in the Menagesha-Suba State Forest, Ethiopia. Small Carnivore Conserv 38:29–33Google Scholar
  70. Urra F (2003) El gato montés en Navarra: distribución, ecología y conservación. Dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de MadridGoogle Scholar
  71. Vilá C, Urios V, Castroviejo J (1994) Use of faeces for marking in Iberian wolves (Canis lupus). Can J Zool 72:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wemmer C, Scow K (1977) Communication in the Felidae with emphasis on scent marking and contact patterns. In: Sebock TA (ed) How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 749–766Google Scholar
  73. Wondmagegne D, Afework B, Balakrishnan M, Gurja B (2011) Collection of African Civet Civettictis civetta perineal gland secretion from naturally scent-marked sites. Small Carnivore Conserv 44:14–18Google Scholar
  74. Zala SM, Potts WK, Penn DJ (2004) Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav Ecol 15:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zub K, Theuerkauf J, Jedrzejewski W, Jedrzejewska B, Schmidt K, Kowalczyk R (2003) Wolf pack territory marking in the Bialowieza primeval forest (Poland). Behaviour 140:635–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unidad Zoología, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations