Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From interference to predation: type and effects of direct interspecific interactions of small mammals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Indirect exploitative competition, direct interference and predation are important interactions affecting species coexistence. These interaction types may overlap and vary with the season and life-history state of individuals. We studied effects of competition and potential nest predation by common shrews (Sorex araneus) on lactating bank voles (Myodes glareolus) in two seasons. The species coexist and may interact aggressively. Additionally, shrews can prey on nestling voles. We studied bank vole mothers’ spatial and temporal adaptations to shrew presence during summer and autumn. Further, we focused on fitness costs, e.g. decreased offspring survival, which bank voles may experience in the presence of shrews. In summer, interference with shrews decreased the voles’ home ranges and they spent more time outside the nest, but there were no effects on offspring survival. In autumn, we found decreased offspring survival in enclosures with shrews, potentially due to nest predation by shrews or by increased competition between species. Our results indicate a shift between interaction types depending on seasonal constraints. In summer, voles and shrews seem to interact mainly by interference, whereas resource competition and/or nest predation by shrews gain importance in autumn. Different food availability, changing environmental conditions and the energetic constraints in voles and shrews later in the year may be the reasons for the varying combinations of interaction types and their increasing effects on the inclusive fitness of bank voles. Our study provides evidence for the need of studies combining life history with behavioural measurements and seasonal constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig M, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amarasekare P (2002) Interference competition and species coexistence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological Sciences 269:2541–2550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amarasekare P, Nisbet R (2001) Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am Nat 158:572–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong RA, McGehee R (1980) Competitive-exclusion. Am Nat 115:151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajkowska U, Chetnicki W, Fedyk S (2009) Breeding of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, under laboratory conditions. Folia Zoologica 58:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra R, Krebs C, Kenney A (1996) Why lemmings have indoor plumbing in summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue canadienne de zoologie 74:1947–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borowski Z, Owadowska E (2010) Field vole (Microtus agrestis) seasonal spacing behavior: the effect of predation risk by mustelids. Naturwissenschaften 97:487–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley J, Marzluff J (2003) Rodents as nest predators: influences on predatory behavior and consequences to nesting birds. AUK 120:1180–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ, Casten RG (1979) Global stability and multiple domains of attraction in ecological systems. Am Nat 113:705–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case T, Gilpin M (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S (1982) Food availability and the diet of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, in Britain. J Anim Ecol 51:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S (1990) The natural history of shrews. Christopher Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition—evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin L, Godin J (1992) Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia-reticulata. Environmental Biology of Fishes 34:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eadie W (1952) Shrew predation and voles populations on a localized area. J Mammal 33:185–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2002) Direct interference or indirect exploitation? An experimental study of fitness costs of interspecific competition in voles. Oikos 99:580–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccard J, Ylönen H (2003a) Who bears the costs of interspecific competition in an age-structured population? Ecology 84:3284–3293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2003b) Interspecific competition in small rodents: from populations to individuals. Evolutionary Ecology 17:423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccard JA, Ylönen H (2007) Costs of coexistence along a gradient of competitor densities: an experiment with arvicoline rodents. J Anim Ecol 76(1):65–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fulk G (1972) Effect of shrews on space utilization of voles. J Mammal 53:461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getz L, Larson C, Lindstrom K (1992) Blarina-brevicauda as a predator on nestling voles. J Mammal 73:591–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliwicz J, Dabrowski MJ (2008) Ecological factors affecting the diel activity of voles in a multi-species community. Annales Zoologici Fennici 45:242–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Halle S (1995) Effect of extrinsic factors on activity of root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Journal of Mammalogy 76:88–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halle S (2006) Polyphasic activity patterns in small mammals. Folia Primatol 77:15–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1968) Population densities of small mammals in open field habitats in south Sweden in 1964–1967. Oikos 19:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1985) Clethrionomys food—generic, specific and regional characteristics. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22:315–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DB, Gregory SD, Macdonald DW (2006) Space invaders? A search for patterns underlying the coexistence of alien black rats and Galapagos rice rats. Oecologia 149:276–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henttonen H, Haukisalmi V, Kaikusalo A, Korpimaki E, Norrdahl K, Skaren U (1989) Long-term population-dynamics of the common shrew Sorex-araneus in Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 26:349–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoset K, Steen H (2007) Relaxed competition during winter may explain the coexistence of two sympatric Microtus species. Annales Zoologici Fennici 44:415–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitu O, Norrdahl K, Korpimaki E (2004) Competition, predation and interspecific synchrony in cyclic small mammal communities. Ecography 27:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaikusalo A (1982) Predatory mammals and vole populations in the fell regions of north-west Finland. Suomen Riista 29:89–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy E, White D (1996) Interference competition from house wrens as a factor in the decline of Bewick’s Wrens. Conserv Biol 10:281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenward RE, Hodder KH (1996) RANGES V: an analysis system for biological location data. Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, p 66

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskela E, Mappes T, Ylönen H (1997) Territorial behaviour and reproductive success of bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus females. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin X, Yoccoz NG (1998) The impact of population kin-structure on nestling survival in Townsend’s voles, Microtus townsendii. Journal Of Animal Ecology 67:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laundre J, Hernandez L, Altendorf K (2001) Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue canadienne de zoologie 79:1401–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. Am Nat 114:765–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesenjohann T, Eccard JA (2008) Foraging under uniform risk from different types of predators. BMC Ecol 8:19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mappes T, Ylönen H, Viitala J (1995) Higher reproductive success among kin groups of bank voles (Clethrionomys-glareolus). Ecology 76:1276–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell WA (1990) An optimal-control theory of diet selection—the effects of resource depletion and exploitative competition. Oikos 58:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell WA, Abramsky Z, Kotler BP, Pinshow B, Brown JS (1990) The effect of competition on foraging activity in desert rodents—theory and experiments. Ecology 71:844–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama S, Ojanguren AF, Fuiman LA (2009) To fight, or not to fight: determinants and consequences of social behaviour in young red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Behaviour 146:815–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niethammer J, Krapp F (1982) Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas—Rodentia II, vol 2/I, 1st edn. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrdahl K, Korpimaki E (2000) The impact of predation risk from small mustelids on prey populations. Mammal Review 30:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen T, Jonsson P, Koskela E, Mappes T (2001) Optimal allocation of reproductive effort: manipulation of offspring number and size in the bank vole. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 268:661–666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Molokwu MN (2007) On the missed opportunity cost, GUD, and estimating environmental quality. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution 53:263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares F, Caro TM (1999) Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. Am Nat 153:492–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pernetta J (1976) Diets of shrews Sorex-araneus L. and Sorex-minutus L. in Wytham-grassland. J Anim Ecol 45:899–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1986) Scorpions, spiders and solpugids: predation and competition among distantly related taxa. Oecologia 71:111–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punzo F (2003) Observations on the diet composition of the gray shrew Notiosorex crawfordi (Insectivora), including interactions with large arthropods. Texas Journal of Science 55:75–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE (1969) Natural selection and development of mortality rates in young birds. Nature 223:922–925

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruzic A (1971) Spitzmäuse als Räuber der Feldmaus Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1779). Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 19:366–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlik L, Jancewicz E (2002) Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes. Behavioral Ecology 13:216–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharf I, Filin I, Ovadia O (2008) An experimental design and a statistical analysis separating interference from exploitation competition. Population Ecology 50:319–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenbrot G, Krasnov B (2002) Can interaction coefficients be determined from census data? Testing two estimation methods with Negev Desert rodents. OIKOS 99:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallegange I, van der Meer J, Kurvers R (2006) Disentangling interference competition from exploitative competition in a crab–bivalve system using a novel experimental approach. Oikos 113:157–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres PF, Eterovick PC (2010) Anuran assemblage composition and distribution at a modified environment in Tres Marias reservoir, south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 44:2649–2667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triplet P, Stillman R, Goss-Custard J (1999) Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. J Anim Ecol 68:254–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valeix M, Chamaille-Jammes S, Fritz H (2007) Interference competition and temporal niche shifts: elephants and herbivore communities at waterholes. Oecologia 153:739–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viitala J (1984) The red vole, Clethrionomys rutilus (Pall.), as a subordinate member of the rodent community at Kilpisjärvi, Finnish Lapland. Acta Zool Fenn 172:67–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls S (1990) Interference competition in postmetamorphic salamanders—interspecific differences in aggression by coexisting species. Ecology 71:307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO (1993) Why are female small mammals territorial. Oikos 68:364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff J, Bateman G (1978) Effects of food availability and ambient temperature on torpor cycles of Perognathus flavus (Heteromyidae). J Mammal 59:707–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO, Peterson JA (1998) An offspring-defense hypothesis for territoriality in female mammals. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 10:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO, Schauber EM (1996) Space use and juvenile recruitment in gray-tailed voles in response to intruder pressure and food abundance. Acta Theriol 41:35–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H (1990) Phenotypic flexibility in the social organization of Clethrionomys. In: Tamarin R, Ostfeld R, Pugh S, Bujalska G (eds) Social systems and population cycles in voles. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 203–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Viitala J (1985) Social-organisation of an enclosed winter population of the bank vole Clethrionomys-glareolus. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22:353–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Viitala J (1991) Social overwintering and food distribution in the bank vole Clethrionomys-glareolus. Holarctic Ecology 14:131–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Kojola T, Viitala J (1988) Changing female spacing behaviour and demography in an enclosed breeding population of Clethrionomys glareolus. Holarctic Ecology 11:286–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Horne T, Luukkonen M (2004) Effect of birth and weaning mass on growth, survival and reproduction in the bank vole. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:433–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng XH, Lu X (2009) Interspecific dominance and asymmetric competition with respect to nesting habitats between two snowfinch species in a high-altitude extreme environment. Ecological Research 24:607–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziv Y, Abramsky Z, Kotler B, Subach A (1993) Interference competition and temporal and habitat partitioning in 2 gerbil species. Oikos 66:237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the German Science Foundation (grand to JAE ec361/4-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Ecology, University of Potsdam, Maulbeerallee1, 14469, Potsdam, Germany

    Monique Liesenjohann, Thilo Liesenjohann & Jana A. Eccard

  2. Department of Biological and Environmental Science and Konnevesi Research Station, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Lenka Trebaticka, Marko Haapakoski & Hannu Ylönen

  3. Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Janne Sundell

Authors
  1. Monique Liesenjohann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thilo Liesenjohann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lenka Trebaticka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marko Haapakoski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Janne Sundell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hannu Ylönen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jana A. Eccard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Liesenjohann.

Additional information

Communicated by E. Korpimäki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liesenjohann, M., Liesenjohann, T., Trebaticka, L. et al. From interference to predation: type and effects of direct interspecific interactions of small mammals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 2079–2089 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1217-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1217-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation