4.1 Article

Do prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) change their activity and space use in response to domestic cat (Felis catus) excreta?

期刊

MAMMALIA
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 24-34

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/mammalia-2020-0012

关键词

introduced predator; odor avoidance; predator odor; predator urine

类别

资金

  1. NSF-REU grant [DBI-0353915]
  2. NSF [IOB0614015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contrary to expectations, adult prairie voles showed no significant changes in response to odor cues from domestic cats, possibly due to lack of co-evolution with cats or insufficient odor levels in the environment. Future studies should consider multiple factors when determining what cues are sufficient to elicit antipredatory behavior.
Behavioral changes that reduce the risk of predation in response to predator-derived odor cues are widespread among mammalian taxa and have received a great deal of attention. Although voles of the genus Microtus are staples in the diet of many mammalian predators, including domestic cats (Felis catus), there are no previous studies on vole space utilization and activity levels in response to odor cues from domestic cats. Therefore, the objective of our study was to investigate responses of adult prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) living in semi-natural habitats to odor cues from domestic cat excreta. Contrary to expectations, neither adult males or females showed significant changes in space use or willingness to enter traps in response to cat odors. One hypothesis to explain our results are that prairie voles have not co-evolved with domestic cats long enough to respond to their odors. Other possible explanations include whether levels of odors in the environment were sufficient to trigger a response or that the perceived risk of predation from odor cues alone did not outweigh relative costs of changing space use and activity levels. Future studies should consider multiple factors when determining what cues are sufficient to elicit antipredatory behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据