Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 100, Issue 11, pp 1023–1030 | Cite as

Seasonal changes in burrow geometry of the common mole rat (Rodentia: Bathyergidae)

  • H. G. Thomas
  • M. Scantlebury
  • D. Swanepoel
  • P. W. Bateman
  • N. C. Bennett
Original Paper

Abstract

Sociality in mole rats has been suggested to have evolved as a response to the widely dispersed food resources and the limited burrowing opportunities that result from sporadic rainfall events. In the most arid regions, individual foraging efficiency is reduced, and energetic constraints increase. In this study, we investigate seasonal differences in burrow architecture of the social Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus in a mesic region. We describe burrow geometry in response to seasonal weather conditions for two seasons (wet and dry). Interactions occurred between seasons and colony size for the size of the burrow systems, but not the shape of the burrow systems. The fractal dimension values of the burrow systems did not differ between seasons. Thus, the burrow complexity was dependent upon the number of mole rats present in the social group.

Keywords

Burrow systems Seasonality Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus Fractal dimension 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Duckitt family of Waylands Farm for allowing field work to be carried out on their land. Thanks go out to our small excavation team, Liz Archer and Josh Sarli who provided valuable assistance in the field. This research was supported by the University of Pretoria, by the SARChI Chair of Mammal Behavioural Ecology and Physiology and by the National Research Foundation, South Africa to NCB.

References

  1. Bennett NC (1989) The social structure and reproductive biology of the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus, and remarks on the trends in reproduction and sociality in the family Bathyergidae. J Zool (Lond) 219:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett NC (1992) Aspects of the social behaviour in a captive colony of the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus. Z Säugetierkd 57:294–309Google Scholar
  3. Bennett NC, Faulkes CG (2000) African mole-rats, ecology and eusociality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett NC, Jarvis JUM, Davies KC (1988) Daily and seasonal temperatures in the burrows of African rodent moles. S Afr J Zool 23:189–195Google Scholar
  5. Brett RA (1991) The ecology of naked mole-rat colonies: burrowing, food and limiting factors. In: Sherman PW, Jarvis JU, Alexander RD (eds) The biology of the naked mole-rat. Princeton University Press, NJ, pp 97–136Google Scholar
  6. Davies KC, Jarvis JUM (1986) The burrows systems and burrowing dynamics of the mole-rats Bathyergus suillus and Cryptomys hottentotus in the fynbos of the south-western Cape, South Africa. J Zool (Lond) 209:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellerman JR (1940) The families and genera of living rodents, vol 1. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Faulkes CG, Verheyen E, Verheyen W, Jarvis JUM, Bennett NC (2004) Phylogeographical patterns of genetic divergence and speciation in African mole-rats (Family: Bathyergidae). Mol Ecol 13:613–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heth G, Todrank J, Begall S, Koch R, Zilgiger Y, Nevo E, Braude SH, Burda H (2002) Odours underground: subterranean rodents may not forage “blindly”. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hickman GC (1979) A live trap and trapping technique for fossorial mammals. S Afr J Zool 14:9–12Google Scholar
  11. Hickman GC (1990) Adaptiveness of tunnel system features in subterranean mammal burrows. In: Nevo E, Reig OA (eds) Evolution of subterranean mammals at the organismal and molecular levels. Wiley, New York, pp 185–210Google Scholar
  12. Jarvis JUM, Bennett NC, Spinks AC (1998) Food availability and foraging by wild colonies of Damaraland mole-rats (Cryptomys damarensis): implications for sociality. Oecologia 113:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lacey EA (2000) The subterranean niche. In: Lacey EA, Patton JL, Cameron GN (eds) Life underground, the biology of subterranean rodents. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Lange S, Neuman B, Hagemeyer P, Burda H (2005) Kairomone-guided food location in subterranean Zambian mole-rats (Cryptomys spp., Bathyergidae). Folia Zool 54(3):263–268Google Scholar
  15. Le Comber SC, Spinks AC, Bennett NC, Jarvis JUM, Faulkes CG (2002) Fractal dimension of African mole-rat burrows. Can J Zool 80:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Comber SC, Seabloom EW, Romañach SS (2006) Burrow fractal dimension and foraging success in subterranean rodent: a simulation. Behav Ecol 17:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovegrove BG (1991) The evolution of eusociality in mole-rats (Bathyergidae): a question of risks, numbers and costs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovegrove BG, Wissell C (1988) Sociality in molerats: metabolic scaling and the role of risk sensitivity. Oecologia 74:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nevo E (1979) Adaptive convergence and divergence of subterranean mammals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:269–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nevo E (1999) Mosaic evolution of subterranean mammals: regression, progression and global convergence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Reichman OJ, Jarvis JUM (1989) The influence of three sympatric species of fossorial mole-rats (Bathyergidae) on vegetation. J Mammal 70:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reichman OJ, Smith S (1985) Impact of pocket gopher burrows on overlying vegetation. J Mammal 66:720–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichman OJ, Smith S (1990) In: Genoways HH (ed) Burrows and burrowing behaviour by mammals in current mammalogy. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Romañach SS, Le Comber SC (2004) Measures of pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrow geometry: correlates of fractal dimension. J Zool (Lond) 262:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenthal CM, Bennett NC, Jarvis JUM (1992) The changes in the dominance hierarchy over time of a complete field-captured colony of Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus. J Zool (Lond) 228:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sichilima A, Bennett NC, Faulkes CG, Le Comber S (2008) Evolution of African mole-rat sociality: burrow architecture, rainfall and foraging in colonies of the cooperatively breeding Fukomys mechowii. J Zool (Lond) 275:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skliba J, Sumbera R, Chitaukali WN, Burda H (2009) Home range dynamics in a solitary subterranean rodent. Ethology 115(3):217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skliba J, Sumbera R, Chitaukali WN (2010) What determines the way of deposition of excavated soil in a subterranean rodent? Acta Theriol 55(3):271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spinks AC, Plaganyi EE (1999) Reduced starvation risks and habitat constraints promote cooperation in the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus: a computer-simulated foraging model. Oikos 85:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spinks AC, Van der Horst G, Bennett NC (1997) Influence of breeding season and reproductive status on male reproductive characteristics in the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus. J Reprod Fertil 109:79–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spinks AC, O'Riain MJ, Polakow DA (1998) Intercolonial encounters and xenophobia in the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus (Bathyergidae): the effects of aridity, sex and, reproductive status. Behav Ecol 9:354–359Google Scholar
  32. Spinks AC, Bennett NC, Jarvis JUM (2000a) A comparison of the ecology of two populations of the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus: the effect of aridity on food, foraging and body mass. Oecologia 125:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spinks AC, Jarvis JUM, Bennett NC (2000b) Comparative patterns of philopatry and dispersal in two common mole-rat populations: implications for the evolution of mole-rat sociality. J Anim Ecol 69:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sumbera R, Burda H, Chitaukali WN, Kubová J (2003) Silvery molerats (Heliophobius argenteocinereus, Bathyergidae) change their burrow architecture seasonally. Naturwissenschaften 90:370–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sumbera R, Sklíba J, Elichová M, Chitaukali WN, Burda H (2008) Natural history and burrow system architecture of the silvery mole-rat from Brachystegia woodland. J Zool (Lond) 274:77–84Google Scholar
  36. Sumbera R, Mazoch V, Patzenhauerová H, Lövy M, Šklíba J, Bryja J, Burda H (2012) Burrow architecture, family composition and habitat characteristics of the largest social African mole-rat: the giant mole-rat constructs really giant burrow systems. Acta Theriol 57:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas HG, Bateman PW, Le Comber SC, Bennett NC, Elwood RW, Scantlebury M (2009) Burrow architecture and digging activity in the Cape dune mole rat. J Zool (Lond) 279(3):277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas HG, Bateman PW, Scantlebury M, Bennett NC (2012) Season but not sex influences burrow length and complexity in the non-sexually dimorphic solitary Cape mole-rat (Rodentia: Bathyergidae). J Zool (Lond) 286:01–06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turchin P (1993) Quantitative analysis of movement. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  40. Vleck D (1979) The energy costs of burrowing by the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae. Physiol Zool 52:122–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. G. Thomas
    • 1
  • M. Scantlebury
    • 1
    • 3
  • D. Swanepoel
    • 1
  • P. W. Bateman
    • 2
    • 4
  • N. C. Bennett
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Environment and AgricultureCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  4. 4.Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations