Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Donât listen to mom: no maternal influence on consistent nest and latrine site choice by their offspring in meadow voles
in BehaviourSearch for other papers by Karl N. Rohrer in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Michael H. Ferkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Where does an animal build a nest? At a large scale, habitat preference can be informed by ânatal habitat preference inductionâ, where an animalâs early environment impacts what habitat it finds suitable later in life. Other preferences may be present within a chosen habitat. We tracked the location angle of nests and latrines within the home cages of captive meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Nests and latrines were separated from each other by an angle of approximately 180°, perhaps to reduce disease transmission. Meadow volesâ nest and latrine site choices were individually consistent across time. Only nest site choices were consistent between siblings, as assessed by a random effect coefficient, and these choices were repeatable. However, nest site choices at maturity were independent of their motherâs nest choice. We posit that the nest and latrine site choice is a socially learned preference developed through the consensus of siblings after weaning.
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
-
Alberts, A.C. (1992). Constraints on the design of chemical communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. â Am. Nat. 139: S62-S89.
-
Boonstra, R., Krebs, C.J. & Kenney, A. (1996). Why lemmings have indoor plumbing in summer. â Can. J. Zool. 74: 1947-1949.
-
Bradbury, J.W. & Vehrencamp, S.L. (1998). Principles of animal communication. â Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
-
Cremers, J. (2020). bpnreg: Bayesian projected normal regression models for circular data. â RÂ package version 1.0.3, RÂ Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, available online at CRAN.R-project.org/package=bpnreg.
-
Cremers, J. & Klugkist, I. (2018). One direction? AÂ tutorial for circular data analysis using R with examples in cognitive psychology. â Front. Psychol. 9: 2040.
-
Cremers, J., Pennings, H.J., Mainhard, T. & Klugkist, I. (2021). Circular modelling of circumplex measurements for interpersonal behavior. â Assessment 28: 585-600.
-
Danchin, Ã. & Wagner, R.H. (2010). Inclusive heritability: combining genetic and non-genetic information to study animal behavior and culture. â Oikos 119: 210-218.
-
Darden, S.K., Steffensen, L.K. & Dabelsteen, T. (2008). Information transfer among widely spaced individuals: latrines as a basis for communication networks in the Swift fox? â Anim. Behav. 75: 425-432.
-
Davis, J.M. & Stamps, J.A. (2004). The effect of natal experience on habitat preferences. â Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 411-416.
-
Dawson, W.D., Lake, C.E. & Schumpert, S.S. (1988). Inheritance of burrow building in Peromyscus. â Behav. Genet. 18: 371-382.
-
Dochtermann, N.A., Schwab, T., Anderson Berdal, M., Dalos, J. & Royauté, R. (2019). The heritability of behavior: a meta-analysis. â J. Hered. 110: 403-410.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Gorman, M.R. (1992). Photoperiod and gonadal hormones influence odor preferences of the male meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. â Physiol. Behav. 51: 1087-1091.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Zucker, I. (1991). Seasonal control of odour preferences of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) by photoperiod and ovarian hormones. â J. Reprod. Fertil. 92: 433-441.
-
Gelman, A., Hwang, J. & Vehtari, A. (2014). Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models. â Stat. Comput. 24: 997-1016.
-
Gilbert, K.A. (1997). Red howling money use of specific defecation sites as a parasite avoidance strategy. â Anim. Behav. 54: 451-455.
-
Gorman, M.L. & Trowbridge, B.J. (1989). The role of odor in the social lives of carnivores. â In: Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution (Gittleman, J.L., ed.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, p. 57-88.
-
Guillette, L.M., Scott, A.C. & Healy, S.D. (2016). Social learning in nest-building birds: a role for familiarity. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 283: 20152685.
-
Hansell, M. (2005). Animal architecture. â Oxford University Press, Oxford.
-
Hart, B.L. (1988). Biological basis of the behavior of sick animals. â Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 12: 123-137.
-
Jordan, N.R., Cherry, M.I. & Manser, M.B. (2007). Latrine distribution and patterns of use by wild meerkats: implications for territory and mate defence. â Anim. Behav. 73: 613-622.
-
Kao, A.B., Miller, N., Torney, C., Hartnett, A. & Couzin, I.D. (2014). Collective learning and optimal consensus decisions in social animal groups. â PLoS Comput. Biol. 10: e1003762.
-
Landler, L., Ruxton, G.D. & Malkemper, E.P. (2018). Circular data in biology: advice for effectively implementing statistical procedures. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72: 1-10.
-
Lee, C.T. (1973). Genetic analyses of nest-building behavior in laboratory mice (Mus musculus). â Behav. Genet. 3: 247-256.
-
Lima, S.L., Rattenborg, N.C., Lesku, J.A. & Amlaner, C.J. (2005). Sleeping under the risk of predation. â Anim. Behav. 70: 723-736.
-
Loehle, C. (1995). Social barriers to pathogen transmission in wild animal populations. â Ecology 76: 326-335.
-
Lynch, C.B. (1980). Response to divergent selection for nesting behavior in Mus musculus. â Genetics 96: 757-765.
-
Mabry, K.E. & Stamps, J.A. (2008). Dispersing brush mice prefer habitat like home. â Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 275: 543-548.
-
Madison, D.M. (1980). Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7: 65-71.
-
Madison, D.M. (1985). Activity rhythms and spacing. â In: Biology of New World Microtus (Tamarin, R.H., ed.). American Society of Mammalogists, Lawrence, KS, p. 373-413.
-
Miller, C.W., Fletcher Jr, R.J., Anderson, B.D. & Nguyen, L.D. (2012). Natal social environment influences habitat selection later in life. â Anim. Behav. 83: 473-477.
-
Nadeau, J.H. (1985). Ontogeny. â In: Biology of New World Microtus (Tamarin, R.H., ed.). American Society of Mammalogists, Lawrence, KS, p. 254-285.
-
R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. â R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, available online at www.R-project.org.
-
RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: integrated development environment for R. â RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, available online at www.rstudio.com.
-
Schwab, C., Bugnyar, T., Schloegl, C. & Kotrschal, K. (2008). Enhanced social learning between siblings in common ravens, Corvus corax. â Anim. Behav. 75: 501-508.
-
Schwabe, K., Boldt, L., Bleich, A., van Dijk, R.M., Helgers, S.O., Häger, C., Nowakowska, M., Riedesel, A.K., Schönhoff, K., Struve, B. & Wittek, J. (2020). Nest-building performance in rats: impact of vendor, experience, and sex. â Lab. Anim. 54: 17-25. DOI:10.1177/0023677219862004.
-
Sherwin, C.M. (1997). Observations on the prevalence of nest-building in non-breeding TO strain mice and their use of two nesting materials. â Lab. Anim. 31: 125-132.
-
Sikes, R.S. & Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2016). 2016 guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. â J. Mammal. 97: 663-688.
-
Stamps, J.A. & Davis, J.M. (2006). Adaptive effects of natal experience on habitat selection by dispersers. â Anim. Behav. 72: 1279-1289.
-
Stamps, J.A., Krishnan, V.V. & Willits, N.H. (2009). How different types of natal experience affect habitat preference. â Am. Nat. 174: 623-630.
-
Stoffel, M.A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. (2017). rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed-effects models. â Methods Ecol. Evol. 8: 1639-1644. DOI:10.1111/2041-210X.12797.
-
Van de Weerd, H.A., Van Loo, P.L.P., Van Zutphen, L.F.M., Koolhaas, J.M. & Baumans, V. (1997). Preferences for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. â Lab. Anim. 31: 133-143.
-
Van Oortmerssen, G.A. (1971). Biological significance, genetics and evolutionary origin of variability in behaviour within and between inbred strains of mice. â Behaviour 38: 1-92.
-
Walsh, P.T., McCreless, E. & Pedersen, A.B. (2013). Faecal avoidance and selective foraging: do wild mice have the luxury to avoid faeces? â Anim. Behav. 86: 559-566.
-
Watanabe, S. (2013). A widely applicable Bayesian information criterion. â J. Mac. Learn. Res. 14: 867-897.
-
Weinstein, S.B., Moura, C.W., Mendez, J.F. & Lafferty, K.D. (2018). Fear of feces? Tradeoffs between disease risk and foraging drive animal activity around raccoon latrines. â Oikos 127: 927-934.
-
Wolff, J.O. (1985). Behavior. â In: Biology of New World Microtus (Tamarin, R.H., ed.). American Society of Mammalogists, Lawrence, KS, p. 340-372.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 503 | 83 | 9 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 37 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 56 | 4 | 0 |
Donât listen to mom: no maternal influence on consistent nest and latrine site choice by their offspring in meadow voles
in BehaviourSearch for other papers by Karl N. Rohrer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael H. Ferkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Where does an animal build a nest? At a large scale, habitat preference can be informed by ânatal habitat preference inductionâ, where an animalâs early environment impacts what habitat it finds suitable later in life. Other preferences may be present within a chosen habitat. We tracked the location angle of nests and latrines within the home cages of captive meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Nests and latrines were separated from each other by an angle of approximately 180°, perhaps to reduce disease transmission. Meadow volesâ nest and latrine site choices were individually consistent across time. Only nest site choices were consistent between siblings, as assessed by a random effect coefficient, and these choices were repeatable. However, nest site choices at maturity were independent of their motherâs nest choice. We posit that the nest and latrine site choice is a socially learned preference developed through the consensus of siblings after weaning.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 503 | 83 | 9 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 37 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 56 | 4 | 0 |
