The response of social and non-social rodents to owl attack
- 324 Downloads
Studies with individual rodents have revealed that they display protean (unpredictable) behavior when attacked by an owl. Other studies have revealed that voles in groups reduce behavioral variability a short time after owl attack, as if adopting the behavior of the higher-mass and perhaps older and more experienced, individuals. Here, we tested groups of rodents under owl attack in order to track the behavior of individuals within the group and compare between the behaviors of social and non-social species. We found differential behavior between species, between groups of the same species, among individuals in the same group, and among the various phases of the owl attack. We also found that upon being exposed to an owl, social rodents tended to huddle together whereas solitary rodents tended to scatter across the available space. Other non-social but perhaps not necessarily solitary rodent species displayed a mixed spacing, with some huddling and some scattering. The findings of the present study shed light on the defensive dynamics of small groups of social and non-social rodent species when they were under owl attack.
Freezing and fleeing are defensive responses that span the animal kingdom, and rodents display various combinations of these in order to prevent predators from predicting their response. Groups of six voles or six spiny mice that were attacked by a barn owl differentially displayed these responses during various phases of the owl attack. Responses also varied among individuals of the same group and among different groups. Finally, we show that when exposed to an owl and displayed freeze response, individuals of social species tended to huddle together, whereas individuals of solitary species scattered over the arena.
KeywordsFreezing Fleeing Protean behavior Anti-predator behavior Defensive behavior
We are grateful to Naomi Paz for language editing, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Committee for Animal Experimentation at Tel-Aviv University (permit no. L-15-011).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The datasets generated during the current study are available with no restriction, on request from the corresponding author.
- Alagaili AN, Mohammed OB, Bennett NC, Oosthuizen MK (2012) Lights out, let’s move about: locomotory activity patterns of Wagner’s gerbil from the desert of Saudi Arabia. Afr Zool 47:195–202Google Scholar
- Bertram BC (1978) Living in groups: predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 64–96Google Scholar
- Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp 282–309Google Scholar
- Demirbaş Y, Pamukoğlu N (2008) The bioecology of Meriones tristrami Thomas, 1892 in Kirikkale province (Mammalia: Rodentia). Int J Nat Eng Sci 2:39–44Google Scholar
- Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ (1992) Prey approaching predators: a cost-benefit perspective. Ann Zool Fenn 29:233–252Google Scholar
- Gromov VS, Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI (2001) Behavioural correlates of spatial distribution in Wagner’s gerbil Gerbillus dasyurus (Rodentia, Gerbillinae). Mammalia 65:111–120Google Scholar
- Jaksić FM, Yáñez JL (1979) The diet of the barn owl in central Chile and its relation to the availability of prey. Auk 96:619–621Google Scholar
- Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Lay DM (1967) A study of the mammals of Iran: resulting from the street expedition of 1962–63. Field Museum of Natural History, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Mandelik Y (1999) Foraging microhabitat use and foraging efficiencies of the common spiny mouse, Acomys cahirinus. Master’s dissertation, Tel Aviv UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Mendelssohn H, Yom-Tov Y (1999) Fauna palaestina: mammalia of israel. Keterpress Enterprises, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
- Pusey AE, Packer C (1997) The ecology of relationships. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Wiley, NY, pp 254–283Google Scholar
- Vulinec K (1990) Collective security: aggregation by insects as a defense. In: Evans DL, Schmidt JO (eds) Insect defenses: adaptive mechanisms and strategies of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 251–288Google Scholar
- Wilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, NYGoogle Scholar