Advertisement

Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 190–197 | Cite as

Spatial population structure in forest voles of the genus Clethrionomys in the southern taiga of the Middle Irtysh region

  • M. G. Mal’kova
  • V. V. Yakimenko
Article

Abstract

A comparative analysis of spatial population structure in the northern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys rutilus Pall.) and large-toothed red-backed vole (Cl. rufocanus Sund.) has been performed in the middle taiga zone of the Middle Irtysh region (Omsk oblast). Populations of these species are represented by sets of territorial groups whose numbers and spatial distribution change from year to year depending on the ratio of these species in a biotope and their population density. There is no significant interspecific competition between cohabitant Cl. rutilus and Cl. rufocanus. In particular, this follows from the fact that the population density and distribution pattern of one species are independent of those of the other species. It has been found that the size of home ranges in Cl. rutilus inversely depends on its population density, with that in Cl. rufocanus remaining approximately the same at different population densities, and that the structure of the resident part of the population in both species changes during the season, as voles from neighboring habitats or dispersing voles settle in the study area.

Key words

northern red-backed vole (Cl. rutiluslarge-toothed red-backed vole (Cl. rufocanusspatial population structure abundance population density aggregation home ranges 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belan, O.R., Studies on the Spatial-Demographic Structure of Vole Populations in Heterogenous Habitats (An Example of the Iremel’ Massif), Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, Yekaterinburg, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Berdyugin, K.I., Territorial Interactions of Rodents Inhabiting Placers in the Urals, in Vnutri-i mezhpopulyatsionnaya izmenchivost’ mlekopitayushchikh Urala (Intra- and Interpopulation Variation in Mammals of the Urals), Sverdlovsk, 1980, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
  3. Berdyugin, K.I. and Sadykov, O.F., Experience in Using Vital Dyes for Rodent Marking, Ekologiya, 1981, no. 5, pp. 63–66.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, W.H., Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals, J. Mammal., 1943, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danilov, A.N., Population Dynamics and Spatial Distribution of Tundra Rodents in Southern Yamal, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, Yekaterinburg, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Demidov, V.V., Mobility of Individuals in Rodent Populations of the Kama Ural Region, Ekologiya, 1991, no. 5, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar
  7. Ivanter, E.V., Populyatsionnaya ekologiya melkikh mlekopitayushchikh taezhnogo severo-zapada SSSR (Population Ecology of Small Mammals in the Northwestern Taiga of the Soviet Union), Leningrad: Nauka, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Karulin, B.E., Litvin, V.Yu., Nikitina, N.A., et al., Investigation of Activity, Mobility, and Daily Range of the Root Vole in the Yamal Peninsula Using Radioactive Cobalt Marking, Zool. Zh., 1976, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1052–1060.Google Scholar
  9. Khlyap, L.A., Structure of Home Ranges and Features of Their Use in Shrews and Forest Voles, in Fauna i ekologiya gryzunov (Fauna and Ecology of Rodents), Moscow, 1983, issue 15, pp. 162–200.Google Scholar
  10. Koshkina, T.V., Population Regulation of Numbers in Rodents, Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Biol.) Dissertation, Sverdlovsk, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. Koshkina, T.V., Okulova, N.M., and Aristova, V.A., Territorial Interactions in Rodents and Their Role in Regulation of Population Density, in Osnovnye problemy teriologii (Main Problems in Theriology), Moscow, 1972, pp. 215–237.Google Scholar
  12. Kravchenko, L.B., Community Dynamics and Population Features of Forest Voles (Genus Clethrionomys) in the Middle Ob Floodplain, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, Tomsk, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Krylov, G.V., Potapovich, V.M., and Kozhevatova, N.F., Tipy lesa Zapadnoi Sibiri (prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlya lesoustroitelei) (Forest Types in Western Siberia: Practical Guidelines for Forest Managers), Novosibirsk: Sib. Otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1958.Google Scholar
  14. Kutenkov, A.P., Area Use by Bank Voles (Clethrionomys glareolus), Zool. Zh., 1979, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 97–104.Google Scholar
  15. Mal’kova, M.G., Mammals of the South of Western Siberia in Natural Foci of Alveococcosis: An Example of Omsk Oblast, Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, Omsk, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Mal’kova, M.G., Yakimenko, V.V., Tantsev, A.K., and Vakhrushev, A.V., Analysis of the Fauna of Small Mammals in Omsk Oblast: 2. Specific Features of Biotopic Distribution of Small Mammals in Different Landscapes, in Estestvennye nauki i ekologiya: Ezhegodnik OmGPU (Natural Sciences and Ecology. Annual Publication of the Omsk State Pedagogical University), Omsk, 1998, issue 3, pp. 226–233.Google Scholar
  17. Mal’kova, M.G., Pal’chekh, N.A., Yakimenko, V.V., and Kuz’min, I.V., The Spatiotemporal Structure of Rodent Populations in the Steppe Zone of Western Siberia, Ekologiya, 2004, no. 1, pp. 34–42.Google Scholar
  18. Mazurkiewicz, M., Spatial Organization of a Bank Vole Population in Years of Small or Large Numbers, Acta Theriol., 1981, vol. 26, no. 1/7, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar
  19. Mazurkiewicz, M., The Influence of Undergrowth Distribution on Utilization of Space by Bank Vole Populations, Acta Theriol., 1986, vol. 31, no. 1/14, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
  20. Metody izucheniya prirodnykh ochagov boleznei cheloveka (Methods for Studying Natural Foci of Human Diseases), Petrishcheva, P.A. and Olsuf’ev, N.G., Eds., Moscow: Meditsina, 1964.Google Scholar
  21. Naumov, N.P., New Method for Studying Ecology of Small Forest Rodents, in Fauna i ekologiya gryzunov (Fauna and Ecology of Rodents), Moscow, 1951, vol. 4, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  22. Nikitina, N.A., Results of Marking Small Rodents in the Komi Republic, Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prior., Otd. Biol., 1961, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
  23. Nikitina, N.A., On Methods for Studying Home Ranges in Rodents with the Aid of Live Traps, Zool. Zh., 1965, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 598–605.Google Scholar
  24. Okulova, N.M., Biologicheskie vzaimosvyazi v lesnykh ekosistemakh (na primere prirodnykh ochagov kleshchevogo entsefalita) (Biological Interrelations in Forest Ecosystems: An Example of Natural Tick-Borne Encephalitis Foci), Moscow: Nauka, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. Plokhinskii, N.A., Biometriya (Biometrics), Novosibirsk: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1961.Google Scholar
  26. Popov, Yu.K., Results of Studies on Some Ecological Features of Murine Rodents by means of Marking, Izv. Kazan. Fil. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Biol. Nauk. Zool., 1958, no. 6, pp. 81–88.Google Scholar
  27. Sadykov, O.F., Bol’shakov, V.N., and Bazhenov, A.V., Spatial Structure of the Mountain Populations of Forest Voles, Ekologiya, 1984, no. 4, pp. 58–64.Google Scholar
  28. Shilov, I.A., Ekologo-fiziologicheskie osnovy populyatsionnykh otnoshenii u zhivotnykh (Ecophysiological Bases of Population Interactions in Animals), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1977.Google Scholar
  29. Smirnov, E.N., Mobility and Mortality of Murine Rodents in Forests of the Middle Sikhote Alin, Zool. Zh., 1972, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 704–714.Google Scholar
  30. Whitford, P.B., Distribution of Woodland Plants in Relation to Succession and Clonal Growth, Ecology, 1949, no. 30, pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
  31. Zhigal’skii, O.A., Mechanisms of Population Dynamics in Small Mammals, Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Biol.) Dissertation, Sverdlovsk, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Mal’kova
    • 1
  • V. V. Yakimenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Omsk Research Institute of Infections with Natural FocalityFederal Control Service in the Sphere of Consumer Rights and People WelfareOmskRussia

Personalised recommendations