Journal of Ethology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 13–19 | Cite as

The scent of your enemy is my friend? The acquisition of large carnivore scent by a smaller carnivore

  • Maximilian L. Allen
  • Micaela S. Gunther
  • Christopher C. Wilmers
Video Article

Abstract

Scent marking is critical to intraspecific communication in many mammal species, but little is known regarding its role in communication among different species. We used 4 years of motion-triggered video to document the use of scent marking areas—termed “community scrapes”—by pumas (Puma concolor) (http://www.momo-p.com/showdetail-e.php?movieid=momo160812pc01a) and other carnivore species. We found that gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) routinely rubbed their cheeks on puma scrapes (http://www.momo-p.com/showdetail-e.php?movieid=momo160812uc01a), and tested a series of hypotheses to determine its function. We found that gray foxes selected puma scrapes over other objects, and cheek rubbing by foxes was also correlated with how recently a puma had visited the scrape, suggesting that foxes were intent upon accumulating fresh puma scent. Cheek rubbing by foxes was not correlated with their breeding season or with how recently another fox had visited the site. Finally we found a cascading pattern in the occurrence of pumas, coyotes (Canis latrans) and gray foxes at community scrapes, suggesting that gray foxes may use puma scent to deter predation. This is the first published study to find evidence of a subordinate species using the scent of a dominant species to communicate with heterospecifics. The behavioral cascade we found in scent marking patterns also suggests that scent marking could be a mechanism that impacts the distribution and abundance of species. Additional videos pertaining to this article include http://www.momo-p.com/showdetail-e.php?movieid=momo160812uc02a, and http://www.momo-p.com/showdetail-e.php?movieid=momo160812uc03a.

Keywords

Cheek rubbing Communication Interspecific interactions Puma concolor Scent marking Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

References

  1. Allen ML, Wittmer HU, Wilmers CC (2014) Puma scrape and communication behaviors: understanding functional use and variation by sex and age. Behaviour 151:819–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen ML, Wittmer HU, Houghtaling P, Smith J, Elbroch LM, Wilmers CC (2015a) The role of scent marking in mate selection by female pumas (Puma concolor). PLoS One 10:e0139087CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen ML, Elbroch LM, Wilmers CC, Wittmer HU (2015b) The comparative effects of large carnivores on the acquisition of carrion by scavengers. Am Nat 185:822–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen ML, Yovovich V, Wilmers CC (2016) Evaluating the responses of a territorial solitary carnivore to potential mates and competitors. Sci Rep 6:27257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ, Hayes RA, McGregor IS (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neuro Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bel MC, Coulon J, Sreng L, Allaine D, Bagneres AG, Clement JL (1999) Social signals involved in scent-marking behavior by cheek-rubbing in Alpine marmots (Marmota marmota). J Chem Ecol 25:2267–2283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bytheway JP, Carthey AJR, Banks PB (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darnell AM, Graf JA, Somers MJ, Slotow R, Gunther MS (2014) Space use of African wild dogs in relation to other large carnivores. PLoS One 9:e98846CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Fritzell EK, Haroldson KJ (1982) Urocyon cinereoargenteus. Mamm Spec 189:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garvey PM, Glen AS, Pech RP (2016) Dominant predator odour triggers caution and eavesdropping behavior in a mammalian mesopredator. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodale E, Beauchamp G, Magrath RD, Nieh JC, Ruxton GD (2010) Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 25:354–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gosling LM, McKay HV (1990) Scent-rubbing and status signaling by male mammals. Chemoecology 1:92–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry JD (1977) The use of urine marking in the scavenging behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Behaviour 61:82–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes NK, Kelley JL, Banks PB (2012) Dangerous liaisons: the predation risks of receiving social signals. Ecol Lett 15:1326–1339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson RP (1973) Scent marking in mammals. Anim Behav 21:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King SRB, Gurnell J (2007) Scent-marking behaviour by stallions: an assessment of function in a reintroduced population of Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii). J Zool 272:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levi T, Wilmers CC (2012) Wolves-coyotes-foxes: a cascade among carnivores. Ecology 93:921–929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Li J, Schaller GB, McCarthy TM, Wang D, Jiagong Z, Cai P, Basang L, Lu Z (2013) A communal signpost of snow leopards (Panthera uncia) and other species on the Tibetan Plateau, China. Int J Biodivers 2013:370905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Magrath RD, Haff TM, Fallow PM, Radford AN (2015) Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences. Biol Rev 90:560–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellen JD (1993) A comparative analysis of scent–marking, social and reproductive behavior in 20 species of small cats. Am Zool 33:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mykytowycz R (1965) Further observations on the territorial function and histology of the submandibular cutaneous (chin) glands in the rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus (L.). Anim Behav 13:400–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ordiz A, Stoen OG, Saebo S, Kindberg J, Delibes M, Swenson JE (2012) Do bears know they are being hunted? Biol Conserv 152:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pineiro A, Barja I (2015) Evaluating the function of wildcat faecal marks in relation to the defence of favourable hunting areas. Ethol Ecol Evol 27:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 25 Sept 2015
  25. Ralls K (1971) Mammalian scent marking. Science 171:443–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Reiger I (1979) Scent rubbing in carnivores. Carnivore 2:17–25Google Scholar
  27. Roper TJ, Conradt L, Butler J, Christian S, Ostler J, Schmid TK (1993) Territorial marking with faeces in badgers (Meles meles): a comparison of boundary and hinterland latrine use. Behaviour 127:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rostain R, Ben-David M, Groves P, Randall JA (2004) Why do river otters scent-mark? An experimental test of several hypotheses. Anim Behav 68:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Shriner WM (1998) Yellow-bellied marmot and golden-mantled ground squirrel responses to heterospecific alarm calls. Anim Behav 55:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokal RS, Rohlf FJ (1987) Introduction to biostatistics. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang Y, Allen ML, Wilmers CC (2015) Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol Conserv 190:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel B, Houghtaling P, Shakeri Y, Allen ML, Kermish-Wells J, Yovovich V, Williams T (2013) Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS One 8:e60590CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian L. Allen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Micaela S. Gunther
    • 3
  • Christopher C. Wilmers
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Integrated Spatial Research, Environmental Studies DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of WildlifeHumboldt State UniversityArcataUSA

Personalised recommendations