Advertisement

Do Carnivores Have a World Wide Web of Interspecific Scent Signals?

  • Peter AppsEmail author
  • Kasim Rafiq
  • J. Weldon McNutt
Conference paper

Abstract

The orthodox view of mammalian chemical communication is that individuals exchange information with members of their own species, but there is now a growing body of evidence that carnivores also send messages to members of different species. A camera trapping study in northern Botswana captured video of 21 species of carnivore, of which 18 scent marked a total of 105 times. Seventeen marks countermarked scent from the same species, and 24 marks countermarked scent from a different species. Of the 39 species of carnivore in southern Africa, 24 are involved in some kind of interspecific scent marking, and smaller webs of interspecific scent marking are found among carnivores in Europe, Australia, north and central America, and the Himalayas. Interspecific scent communication has been missed in the past due to an almost exclusive focus on single-species studies, and because the tool that is essential to study it; camera trapping, has come into widespread use only in the past decade. Now we know that interspecific scent marking is common and widespread, we need to take a closer look at it to understand its role in carnivore guild ecology.

References

  1. Alexander KA, Sanderson CE, Larsen MH, Robbe-Austerman S, Williams MC, Palmer MV (2016) Emerging tuberculosis pathogen hijacks social communication behavior in the group-living banded mongoose (Mungos mungo). MBio 7(3):e00281–e002816PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen ML, Gunther MS, Wilmers CC (2017) The scent of your enemy is my friend? The acquisition of large carnivore scent by a smaller carnivore. J Ethol 35:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen ML, Wallace CF, Wilmers CC (2015) Patterns in bobcat (Lynx rufus) scent marking and communication behaviors. J Ethol 33:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen ML, Wittmer HU, Wilmers CC (2014) Puma communication behaviours: understanding functional use and variation among sex and age classes. Behaviour 151:819–840CrossRefGoogle 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. Neurosci Biobehav Res 29:1123–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apps PJ, McNutt JW (2018) Are camera traps fit for purpose? A rigorous, reproducible and realistic test of camera trap performance. Afr J Ecol 56:710–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apps P, Mmualefe L, McNutt JW (2013) A reverse engineering approach to identifying which compounds to bioassay for signalling activity in the scent marks of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). In: East ML, Denhard M (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates XII. Springer, Berlin, pp 417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apps PJ, Claase M, Yexley B, McNutt JW (2017) Interspecific responses of wild African carnivores to odour of 3-mercapto-3-methylbutanol, a component of wildcat and leopard urine. J Ethol 35:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banks PB, Daly A, Bytheway JP (2016) Predator odours attract other predators, creating an olfactory web of information. Biol Lett 12:20151053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barja I, de Miguel FJ, Bárcena F (2005) Faecal marking behaviour of Iberian wolf in different zones of their territory. Folia Zool 54:21–29Google Scholar
  11. Begg CM, Begg KS, Du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2003) Scent-marking behaviour of the honey badger, Mellivora capensis (Mustelidae), in the southern Kalahari. Anim Behav 66:917–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berdoy M, Webster JP, Macdonald DW (2000) Fatal attraction in Toxoplasma-infected rats: a case of parasite manipulation of its mammalian host. Proc R Soc B 267:1591–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braczkowski A, Watson L (2013) Observations of leopard and caracal responses to novel scents in South Africa. Cat News 58:13–15Google Scholar
  14. Caro TM, Stoner CJ (2003) The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biol Conserv 110:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charpentier MJ, Crawford JC, Boulet M, Drea CM (2010) Message ‘scent’: lemurs detect the genetic relatedness and quality of conspecifics via olfactory cues. Anim Behav 80:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clapperton BK, Eason CT, Weston RJ, Woolhouse AD, Morgan DR (1994) Development and testing of attractants for feral cats, Felis catus L. Wildl Res 21:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coe J (2004) Mixed species rotation exhibits. In: 2004 ARAZPA conference proceedings, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Darden SK, Steffensen LK, Dabelsteen T (2008) Information transfer among widely spaced individuals: latrines as a basis for communication networks in the swift fox? Anim Behav 75:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Monte M, Roeder JJ (1990) Responses to inter-and intraspecific scent marks in pine martens (Martes martes). J Chem Ecol 16:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Satgé J, Teichman K, Cristescu B (2017) Competition and coexistence in a small carnivore guild. Oecologia 184:873–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Espírito-Santo C, Rosalino LM, Santos-Reis M (2007) Factors affecting the placement of common genet latrine sites in a Mediterranean landscape in Portugal. J Mammal 88:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferkin MH, Pierce MA (2007) Perspectives on over-marking: is it good to be on top? J Ethol 25:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gipson PS (1983) Evaluation and control implications of behavior of feral dogs in interior Alaska. In Kaukemen DE (ed) Vertebrate pest control and management materials: fourth symposium. ASTM STP 817. American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 285–294Google Scholar
  24. Gorman ML (1976) A mechanism for individual recognition by odour in Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae). Anim Behav 24:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gorman ML, Trowbridge BJ (1989) The role of odor in the social lives of carnivores. In Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Springer, New York, pp. 57–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grassel SM, Rachlow JL, Williams CJ (2015) Spatial interactions between sympatric carnivores: asymmetric avoidance of an intraguild predator. Ecol Evol 5:2762–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grether GF, Peiman KS, Tobias JA, Robinson BW (2017) Causes and consequences of behavioral interference between species. Trends Ecol Evolut. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.07.004
  28. Harmsen BJ, Sanchez E, Foster RJ (2016) Differential marking behaviour by sympatric felids in a neotropical forest. CATnews 64:8–12Google Scholar
  29. Hayward MW, Hayward GJ (2010) Potential amplification of territorial advertisement markings by black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas). Behaviour 147:979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henry JD (1977) The use of urine marking in the scavenging behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Behaviour 61:82–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoffman KL, Decasa DH, Ruiz MB, González-Mariscal G (2010) Scent marking by the male domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is stimulated by an object’s novelty and its specific visual or tactile characteristics. Behav Brain Res 207:360–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holekamp KE, Benson-Amram S (2017) The evolution of intelligence in mammalian carnivores. Interf Focus 7:20160108.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunter J, Caro T (2008) Interspecific competition and predation in American carnivore families. Ethol Ecol Evol 20:295–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hurst JL, Beynon RJ (2004) Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. BioEssays 26:1288–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones ME, Apfelbach R, Banks PB, Cameron EZ, Dickman CR, Frank A, McLean S, McGregor IS, Müller-Schwarze D, Parsons MH, Sparrow E, Blumstein DT (2016) A nose for death: integrating trophic and informational networks for conservation and management. Front Ecol Evol 4:124.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jordan NR, Golabek KA, Apps PJ, Gilfillan GD, McNutt JW (2013) Scent-mark identification and scent-marking behaviour in African Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus). Ethology 119:644–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan NR, Manser MB, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Rüedi P, Cant MA (2011a) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 1. Sex-specific scents and overmarking. Anim Behav 81:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jordan NR, Mwanguhya F, Kyabulima S, Rüedi P, Hodge SJ, Cant MA (2011b) Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 3. Intrasexual overmarking in females. Anim Behav 81:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karlson P, Lüscher M (1959) ‘Pheromones’: a new term for a class of biologically active substances. Nature 183:55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King TW, Salom-Pérez R, Shipley LA, Quigley HB, Thornton DH (2016) Ocelot latrines: communication centers for Neotropical mammals. J Mammal 98:106–113Google Scholar
  42. Kushata JNT, Périquet S, Tarakini T, Muzamba M, Mafuwa B, Loveridge AJ, MacDonald DW, Fritz H, Valeix M (2018) Drivers of diurnal rest site selection by spotted hyaenas. J Zool 304:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenth BE, Knight RL, Brennan ME (2006) The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Nat Area J 28:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li J, Schaller GB, McCarthy TM, Wang D, Jiagong Z, Cai P, Basang L, Lu Z (2013) A communal sign post of snow leopards (Panthera uncia) and other species on the Tibetan Plateau, China. Int J Biodiversity 2013Google Scholar
  45. Linklater WL, Greenwood D, Keyzers RA, Duckworth JA, Banks P, MacKay JWB, Stockum C (2013) Pied-pipers wanted: the search for super-lures of New Zealand mammal pests. New Zealand Science Review 70:31–36Google Scholar
  46. Linnell JD, Strand O (2000) Interference interactions, co-existence and conservation of mammalian carnivores. Divers Distrib 6:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Macdonald DW (1979) Some observations and field experiments on the urine marking behaviour of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes L. Ethology 51:1–22Google Scholar
  48. Macdonald DW (1980) Patterns of scent marking with urine and feces amongst carnivore communities. Symp Zool Soc Lond 45:107–139Google Scholar
  49. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marnewick KA, Bothma JDP, Verdoorn GH (2006) Using camera-trapping to investigate the use of a tree as a scent-marking post by cheetahs in the Thabazimbi district. S Afr J Wildl Res 36:139–145Google Scholar
  51. McLean S, Müller-Schwarze D, Sparrow EE (2017) Biologically meaningful scents: a framework for understanding predator–prey research across disciplines. Biol Rev 93:98–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McTavish C, Gibeau M (2010) How animals send “tree mail”. Remote imaging reveals forest communication. The Wildlife Professional Summer 2010:66–68Google Scholar
  53. Monclús R, Arroyo M, Valencia A, De Miguel FJ (2009) Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) use rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) scent marks as territorial marking sites. J Ethol 27:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Monterroso P, Alves PC, Ferreras P (2011) Evaluation of attractants for non-invasive studies of Iberian carnivore communities. Wildl Res 38:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Müller-Schwarze D (1977) Complex mammalian behavior and pheromone bioassay in the field. In: Müller-Schwarze D, Mozell MM (eds) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates. Springer, Boston, pp 413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Müller-Schwarze D (2016) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 13: where do we stand and what might be next. In Schulte BA, Goodwin TE, Ferkin MH (eds) Chemical signals in vertbrates 13. Springer, New York, pp 11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nel JAJ, Bothma J (1983) Scent marking and midden use by aardwolves (Proteles cristatus) in the Namib Desert. Afr J Ecol 21:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palphramand KL, White PC (2007) Badgers, Meles meles, discriminate between neighbour, alien and self scent. Anim Behav 74:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paquet PC (1991) Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park. Can J Zool 69:1721–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parsons MH, Apfelbach R, Banks PB, Cameron EZ, Dickman CR, Frank AS, Jones ME, McGregor IS, McLean S, Müller‐Schwarze D, Sparrow EE (2017) Biologically meaningful scents: a framework for understanding predator–prey research across disciplines. Biol Rev 93:98–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peters RP, Mech LD (1975) Scent-marking in wolves: radio-tracking of wolf packs has provided definite evidence that olfactory sign is used for territory maintenance and may serve for other forms of communication within the pack as well. Am Sci 63:628–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Poirotte C, Kappeler PM, Ngoubangoye B, Bourgeois S, Moussodji M, Charpentier MJ (2016) Morbid attraction to leopard urine in Toxoplasma-infected chimpanzees. Curr Biol 26:R98–R99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ralls K, Smith DA (2004) Latrine use by San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and coyotes (Canis latrans). West N Am Nat 64:544–547Google Scholar
  65. Rich LN, Miller DAW, Robinson HS, McNutt JW, Kelly MJ (2017) Carnivore distributions in Botswana are shaped by resource availability and intraguild species. J Zool 303:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roeder J (1980) Marking behaviour and olfactory recognition in genets (Genetta genetta L., Carnivora-Viverridae). Behaviour 72:200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rowcliffe JM, Kays R, Carbone C, Jansen PA (2013) Clarifying assumptions behind the estimation of animal density from camera trap rates. J Wildl Manag 77:876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ruiz-Olmo J, Such-Sanz A, Piñol C (2013) Substrate selection for urine spraying in captive wildcats. J Zool 290:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sepúlveda MA, Singer RS, Silva-Rodríguez EA, Eguren A, Stowhas P, Pelican K (2014) Invasive American mink: linking pathogen risk between domestic and endangered carnivores. EcoHealth 11:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stewart PD, MacDonald DW, Newman C, Tattersall FH (2002) Behavioural mechanisms of information transmission and reception by badgers, Meles meles, at latrines. Anim Behav 63:999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tinnesand HV, Buesching CD, Noonan MJ, Newman C, Zedrosser A, Rosell F, Macdonald DW (2015) Will trespassers be prosecuted or assessed according to their merits? A consilient interpretation of territoriality in a group-living carnivore, the European badger (Meles meles). PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132432.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132432CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Vanak AB, Fortin D, Thaker M, Ogden M, Owen C, Greatwood S, Slotow R (2013) Moving to stay in place: behavioral mechanisms for coexistence of African large carnivores. Ecology 94:2619–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vitale J (2017) The olfactory behaviour of spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) and sympatric mammals in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. PhD thesis, University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  74. Wagnon CJ, Serfass TL (2016) Camera traps at northern river otter latrines enhance carnivore detectability along riparian areas in eastern North America. Global Ecol Conserv 8:138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wearn OR, Glover-Kapfer P (2017) Camera-trapping for conservation: a guide to best-practices. WWF conservation technology series, vol 1, no 1. WWF-UK, Woking, UKGoogle Scholar
  76. Westrip JR, Bell MB (2015) Breaking down the species boundaries: selective pressures behind interspecific communication in vertebrates. Ethology 121:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wikenros C, Jarnemo A, Frisén M, Kuijper DP, Schmidt K (2017) Mesopredator behavioral response to olfactory signals of an apex predator. J Ethol 35:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wyatt TD (2010) Pheromones and signature mixtures: defining species-wide signals and variable cues for identity in both invertebrates and vertebrates. J Comp Physiol A 196:685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Botswana Predator Conservation TrustMaunBotswana
  2. 2.School of Natural Science and PsychologyLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations