4.2 Article

Effect of native and non-native snake scents on foraging activity of native rodents in Florida

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 136-145

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyab124

关键词

Crotalus; Neotoma; olfaction; Pantherophis; Peromyscus; predation risk; predator cues; Python; scent; Sigmodon

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rodents use direct and indirect cues of predators to assess predation risk. While the responses to mammalian predators are well-studied, the understanding of responses to reptilian predators is limited. This study explores the responses of rodents to scent cues of snake predators in tropical and subtropical regions and finds that different species utilize different cues to evaluate predation risk.
Rodents use direct and/or indirect cues of predators to assess predation risk. The responses to these cues are well studied with regard to mammalian predators, but less understood with regard to reptilian predators. These responses are of particular importance in tropical and subtropical regions where reptile diversity is high and the likelihood of establishment of invasive reptilian predators also is high. We hypothesized that rodents would respond to direct scent cues of snake predators and that rodents would show greater aversion to scents of native snake predators than non-native snake predators. To assess this, scents of three snake species, two native and one non-native, and a non-snake control odor were distributed in Sherman live traps using a randomized block design. A total of 69 rodents representing four species were captured. Responses varied by species reinforcing that some species utilize indirect cues to assess predation risk, whereas others use direct cues. Moreover, one species (Neotoma floridana) showed a preference for non-native Python scent, indicating a lack of the appropriate anti-predator behavior, suggesting that some native rodents are more at risk of attack from invasive snakes than other native rodents.

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

4.2
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