Landscape Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 401–412 | Cite as

Vole outbreaks in a landscape context: evidence from a six year study of Microtus arvalis

  • P. Delattre
  • B. De Sousa
  • E. Fichet-Calvet
  • J.P. Quéré
  • P. Giraudoux
Article

Abstract

Analysis of population variations in space and time suggests that landscape may act as a substrate for several kinds of interactions: neighborhood effects, edge effects, prey-predator and parasite-host relationships, etc. Here we discuss how landscape structure and physiognomy affect vole population dynamics. We present the results of a six-year survey of vole populations in the Jura mountains of eastern France (700–900 m elev.) which was conducted to determine whether patch array (i.e. spatial arrangement of different habitat patches) and vole demography are interconnected?

The population kinetics of M. arvalis has been monitored in different habitats characterized by extensive homogenous and heterogeneous landscapes. We compare results from different parts of these landscapes to test the neighborhood effects of hedgerow networks, wood mosaics, forests, and villages. Analysis suggests that (1) refuge habitats for specialist predators act as destabilizing factors increasing both the amplitude of fluctuations and the duration of the high density phase, (2) refuge habitats for generalist predators act as regulating factors, dampening vole population kinetics and shortening the phase of peak numbers, (3) sink effects occur at forest edges and in the vicinity of villages, and (4) barrier effects are detected in grassland surrounded by forest. Such descriptive studies have implications for pest control strategies and provide a framework for further demographic field studies and natural experiments.

edge effects habitat landscape structure multiannual fluctuation predation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. and Erlinge, S. 1977. Influence of predation on rodent populations. Oikos 29: 591–597.Google Scholar
  2. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, G.W. and Peles, J.D. 1994. Optimizing habitat fragmentation; an agrolandscape perspective. Landscape Urban Planning 28: 99–105.Google Scholar
  4. Batzli, G.O. 1994. Community responses of voles to patchy habitats. Polish Ecol. Studies 20: 85–99.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, A.M. and Dooley, J.L. 1998. A controlled, hierarchical study of habitat fragmentation: responses at the individual, patch, and landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, in press.Google Scholar
  6. Butet, A. and Leroux, A. 1994. Spatial and temporal density in common vole populations in a marsh in western France. Polish Ecol. Studies 20: 137–146.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, L.K., Singleton, G.R. and Van Wensveen, M. 1996. Spatial heterogeneity in wild populations of house mice (Mus domesticus) on the Darling Downs, south-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Res. 23: 23–38.Google Scholar
  8. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Damange, J.P. and Quéré, J.P. 1990. Recherche d'un indicateur de la cinétique démographique des populations du campagnol des champs (Microtus arvalis). Revue Ecologie (Terre et Vie) 45: 375–384.Google Scholar
  9. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Baudry, J., Musard, P., Toussaint, M., Truchetet, D., Stahl, P., Lazarine-Poule, M., Artois, M., Damange, J.P. and Quéré, J.P. 1992a. Land use patterns and types of common vole (Microtus arvalis) population kinetics. Agriculture, Ecosyst. Env. 39: 153–169.Google Scholar
  10. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Habert, M. and Quéré, J.P. 1992b. La lutte contre les rongeurs en plantations de feuillus. Application des techniques de lutte intégrée. Revue Française Forestière 44: 91–98.Google Scholar
  11. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Baudry, J., Quéré, J.P. and Fichet, E. 1996. Effect of landscape structure on Common Vole (Microtus arvalis) distribution and abundance at several space scales. Landscape Ecol. 11: 279–288.Google Scholar
  12. Erlinge, S., Göransson, G., Hansson, L., Högstedt, G., Liberg, O., Nilsson, I.N., Nilsson, T., Von Schantz, T. and Sylvén, M. 1983. Predation as a regulating factor on small rodent populations in southern Sweden. Oikos 40: 36–52.Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig, L. 1992. Relative importance of spatial and temporal scales in a patchy environment. Theor. Popul. Biol. 41: 300–314.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald, B.M. 1977. Weasel predation on a cyclic population of the montane vole (Microtus montanus) in California. J. Animal Ecol. 46: 367–397.Google Scholar
  15. Gaines, M.S., Diffendorfer, J.E., Foster, J., Wray, F.P. and Holt, R.D. 1994. The effect of habitat fragmentation on populations of three species of small mammals in Eastern Kansas. Polish Ecol. Studies 20: 163–175.Google Scholar
  16. Giraudoux, P., Delattre, P., Habert, M., Quéré, J.P., Deblay, S., Defaut, R., Duhamel, R., Moissenet, M.F., Salvi, D. and Truchetet, D. 1997. Population dynamics of the fossorial form of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris Scherman): a land usage and landscape perpective. Agriculture Ecosyst. Env. 66: 47–60.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski, I. 1987. Populations of small mammals cycle-unless they don't. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 55–56.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski, I., Hansson, L. and Henttonen, H. 1991. Specialist predators, generalist predators, and the microtine rodent cycle. J. Animal Ecol. 60: 353–367.Google Scholar
  19. Hansson, L. 1988. The domestic cat as a possible modifier of vole dynamics. Mammalia 52: 159–164.Google Scholar
  20. Hansson, L. 1989. Predation in heterogeneous landscapes: how to evaluate total impact? Oikos 54: 117–119.Google Scholar
  21. Hansson, L. 1990. Spatial dynamics in fluctuating vole populations. Oecologia 85: 213–217.Google Scholar
  22. Hansson, L. 1994. Verterbrate distributions relative to clear-cut edges in a boreal forest landscape. Landscape Ecol. 9: 105–115.Google Scholar
  23. Hansson, L. 1995. Development and application of landscape approaches in mammalian ecology. In Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology and Conservation. pp. 20–39. Edited by W.Z. Lidicker, Jr. University of Minesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  24. Henttonen, H. 1986. Causes and geographic patterns of microtine cycle. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  25. Henttonen, H., Oksanen, T., Jortikka, A. and Haukisalmi, V. 1987. How much do weasels shape microtine cycles in the northern Fennoscandia taiga? Oikos 50: 353–365.Google Scholar
  26. Heske, E.J. 1998. Activity of generalist mammalian predators and songbird nest predation on forest-field edges in east-central Illinois. Landscape Ecol., in press.Google Scholar
  27. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1988. Solving the enigma of microtine ‘cycles'. J. Mammal. 69: 225–235.Google Scholar
  28. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1991. In defense of a multifactor perspective in population ecology. J. Mammal. 72: 631–635.Google Scholar
  29. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1994. A spatially explicit approach to vole population processes. Polish Ecol. Studies 20: 215–225.Google Scholar
  30. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1995. The landscape concept: something old, something new. In Landscape Approches in Mammalian Ecology and Conservation. pp. 3–19. Edited by W.Z. Lidicker, Jr. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  31. Liro, A. and Szacki, J. 1994. Movements of small mammals along two ecological corridors in suburban Warsaw. Polish Ecol. Studies 20: 227–231.Google Scholar
  32. Loman, J. 1991. Small mammal and raptor densities in habitat islands; area effect in a south Swedish agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 5: 183–189.Google Scholar
  33. Ostfeld, R.S. 1992. Effect of habitat patchiness on population dynamics: a modelling approach. In Wildlife 2001: Populations. pp. 851–863. Edited by D.R. McCullough and R.H. Barrett. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
  34. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132: 652–661.Google Scholar
  35. Readhead, T.D. and Singleton, G.R. 1988. The PICA Strategy for the prevention of losses caused by plagues of Mus domesticus in rural Australia. EPPO Bull. 18: 237–248.Google Scholar
  36. Szacki, J., Babinska-Werka, J. and Liro, A. 1993. The influence of landscape spatial structure on small mammal movements. Acta Theriologica 38: 113–123.Google Scholar
  37. Teivainen, T. 1979. Vole damage to forest tree seedlings in reforested areas and fields in Finland in the years 1973–1976. Folia Forestalia 387: 1–25.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. (eds) 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B. and Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Delattre
    • 1
  • B. De Sousa
    • 1
  • E. Fichet-Calvet
    • 1
  • J.P. Quéré
    • 1
  • P. Giraudoux
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de MontpellierMontpellier cedex 05France
  2. 2.Université de Franche-comté, LBPEBesançon cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations