Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Territory ownership and familiarity status affect how much male root voles (Microtus oeconomus) invest in territory defence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neighbour–stranger discrimination occurs when individuals respond with more aggression to strangers than to territorial neighbours—a phenomenon termed the “dear enemy phenomenon” (DEP). We investigated the DEP with male and female root voles (Microtus oeconomus Pallas 1776) using field dyadic arena tests conducted in enclosures where we could test for the effects of familiarity (familiar versus stranger), ownership (resident versus intruder status) and resource-holding potential (body mass) on territorial behaviours. The results showed that males put more effort into territorial defence than females, and males could discriminate between neighbours and strangers. In males, aggressiveness was influenced by a significant two-way interaction between treatment and ownership. Male residents were more aggressive towards stranger intruders than towards neighbour intruders, while male intruders were less aggressive towards stranger residents than towards neighbour residents. In females, neither treatment nor ownership status had a significant effect on aggressiveness. Familiar males performed more social behaviours but less non-social behaviours than stranger males. Furthermore, there was a clear dominance hierarchy between residents and intruders in stranger dyads, with the male territory holders dominating the intruder in pairwise interactions. To our knowledge, these results demonstrate for the first time DEP in a small mammal with a known pedigree and present the first evidence for “prior resident advantage” in voles. We argue that both ownership status and familiarity status affect how much an individual invests in territory defence. The benefits of neighbour–stranger discrimination for male root voles and the absence of neighbour–stranger discrimination in female root voles are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aars J, Ims RA (2000) Population dynamic and genetic consequences of spatial density-dependent dispersal in patchy populations. Am Nat 155:252–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aars J, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (1994) The use of fluorescent pigments to establish mother–offspring relationships in small mammals. Mammalia 58:649–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrell J, Wolff JO, Ylonen H (1998) Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: costs and consequences. Oikos 83:507–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Gundersen (2006) Male turnover reduces population growth: an enclosure experiment on voles. Ecology 87:88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2001) Dispersal in patchy vole populations: role of patch configuration, denisty dependence, and demography. Ecology 82:2911–2926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Hertzberg K, Ims RA (1998) Space-use responses to habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the root vole Microtus oeconomus. Ecology 79:1223–1235

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer J (1987) The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard S, Hau M, Wikelski M, Winglfield JC (2002) Vocal distinctiveness and response to conspecific playback in the spotted antbird, a neotropical suboscine. Condor 104:387–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra R, Krebs CJ, Gaines MS, Johnson ML, Craine ITM (1987) Natal philopatry and breeding systems in voles (Microtus spp.). J Anim Ecol 56:655–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson FS (1982) Competition for mates and predominant juvenile male dispersal in mammals. Anim Behav 30:1183–1192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebsensperger LA (1998) Strategies and counterstrategies to infanticide in mammals. Biol Rev 73:321–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferkin MH (1988) The effect of familiarity on social interactions in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus: a laboratory and field study. Anim Behav 36:1816–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher J (1954) Evolution and bird sociality. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen and Unwin, London, pp 71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J (2002) An R and S plus companion for applied regression. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Getty T (1987) Dear enemies and the prisoners-dilemma—why should territorial neighbours form defensive coalitions. Am Zool 27:327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen G, Andreassen HP (1998) Causes and consequences of natal dispersal in root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Anim Behav 56:1355–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansteen TL, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (1997) Effects of spatiotemporal scale on autocorrelation and home range estimators. J Wildl Manag 61:280–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoset KS, Le Galliard JF, Gundersen G, Steen H (2008) Home range size and overlap in female root voles: the effects of season and density. Behav Ecol 19:139–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland N, Andreassen HP (1995) Fluorescent powder as dye in bait for studying foraging areas in small mammals. Acta Theriol 40:315–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA (1987) Responses in the spatial organization and behaviour to the food resources in the vole Clethrionomys rufocanos. J Anim Ecol 56:555–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA (1997) Determinants of geographic variation in growth and reproductive traits in the root vole. Ecology 78:461–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA, Andreassen HP (1999) Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation and connectivity on root vole demography. J Anim Ecol 68:839–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA, Rolstad J, Wegge P (1993) Predicting space use responses to habitat fragmentation—can voles Microtus oeconomus serve as an experimental-model system (EMS) for capercaillie grouse Tetrao urogallus in boreal forest. Biol Conserv 63:261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger RG (1981) Dear enemy recognition and the costs of aggression between salamanders. Am Nat 117:962–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2004) Fighting without weaponry: a review of male–male contest competition in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:429–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, López-Sepulcre A, Morrell LJ (2006) From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. Am Nat 167:901–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskela E, Mappes T, Ylonen H (1997) Territorial behaviour and reproductive success of bank vole Cletherionomys glarelous females. J Anim Ecol 66:341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin X, Krebs CJ, Scott B (1992) Spacing system of the tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus) during the breeding season in Canada western arctic. Can J Zool 10:2068–2072

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Galliard JF, Gundersen G, Andreassen HP (2006) Natal dispersal, interactions among siblings and intrasexual competition. Behav Ecol 17:733–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque-Larena JJ, Lopez P, Gosalbez J (2002) Levels of social tolerance between snow voles Chionomys nivalis during over-wintering periods. Acta Theriol 47:163–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contest. Anim Behav 24:159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire B, Getz L (1998) The nature and frequency of social interactions among free-living prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behav Ecol Soc 43:271–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills SC, Grapputo A, Koskela E, Mappes T (2007) Quantitative measure of sexual selection with respect to the operational sex ratio: a comparison of selection indices. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 274:143–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld RS (1985a) Limiting resources and territoriality in microtine voles. Am Nat 126:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld RS (1985b) Experimental analysis of aggression and spacing behavior in California voles. Can J Zool 63:2277–2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon NG, Jacquot JJ (2002) Testing functional hypotheses for wandering in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Can J Zool 80:951–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen H (1994) Low survival of long-distance dispersers of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus). Annal Zool Fenn 31:271–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard PK (1996) Chapter 20: Vocal recognition in territorial passerines. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 356–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokkebo S, Hardy ICW (2000) The importance of being gravid: egg load and contest outcome in a parasitoid wasp. Anim Behav 59:1111–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tast J (1966) The root vole, Microtus oeconomus (Pallas), as an inhabitant of seasonally flooded land. Annal Zool Fenn 3:127–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they ‘dear enemies’? Anim Behav 47:339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestal BM, Hellack JJ (1978) Comparison of neighbor recognition in two species of deer mice (Peromyscus). J Mammal 59:339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO (1985) Behavior. In: Tamarin RH (ed) Biology of new world Microtus. American Society of Mammalogists, New York, pp 340–372 (Special publication no. 8)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO, Freeberg MH, Dueser RD (1983) Interspecific territoriality in two sympatric species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Behav Ecol Soc 12:237–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ydenberg RC, Giraldeau LA, Falls JB (1988) Neighbors, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Anim Behav 36:343–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the kind help of K. Hoset and L. Korslund who provided the breeding pairs used in our experiment. We thank F. Bergan for excellent help in the field. The study was supported financially by Telemark University College funding to F. R., a grant from the Research Council of Norway project “Mechanisms of species co-existence in patchy habitats” to G. G. and a grant from the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission (Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship FP6-501658) to J.-F.L.G. The housing at the Animal Division and experimentations at Evenstad Research Station were done in accordance with the Norwegian “Animal Welfare Act” (#73) of 20.12.74, the Norwegian “Regulation on Animal Experimentation” of 15.01.96 and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes of 18.03.86.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Environmental and Health Studies, Telemark University College, 3800, Bø in Telemark, Norway

    Frank Rosell

  2. Division of Zoology, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1050, Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Gry Gundersen

  3. Faculty of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Hedmark University College, 2480, Koppang, Norway

    Gry Gundersen

  4. Laboratoire Fonctionnement et Evolution des Systèmes Ecologiques, CNRS UMR 7625, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Case 237, 7 Quai St Bernard, 75005, Paris, France

    Jean-François Le Galliard

Authors
  1. Frank Rosell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gry Gundersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-François Le Galliard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Rosell.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Banks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosell, F., Gundersen, G. & Le Galliard, JF. Territory ownership and familiarity status affect how much male root voles (Microtus oeconomus) invest in territory defence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62, 1559–1568 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0585-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0585-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation