Influence of predation risk and plant structure on vigilance and intermittent locomotion in Microcavia australis (Rodentia, Caviidae)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare vigilance behavior and intermittent locomotion at two sites (El Leoncito and Ñacuñán, Argentina) that differ in predation risk, plant structure, and plant resource availability. Subjects were lesser cavies (Microcavia australis), a social species that is semi-fossorial, diurnal, and native to South America. Continuous focal sampling was conducted during the day, at times of food shortage, food abundance, and reproduction from 2003 to 2005. The proportion of time spent vigilance was significantly higher at Ñacuñán, where vigilance peaked at midday and reached a minimum in the evening. This midday peak of vigilance at Ñacuñán was associated with a midday peak of danger from raptors as indicated by a raptor activity peak at that time. In contrast, both vigilance and predator activity at El Leoncito were constant through the day. Records of intermittent locomotion and number and duration of pauses in locomotion were significantly higher at El Leoncito, a difference that may have been due to the need for greater vigilance while moving across areas of less protective cover at this site.

The biodeposition process in native mammals: spatial distribution and influence of waste products on soil fertility in restored and grazed woodland

“…The deposition of waste products by herbivorous mammals, such as prairie dogs and kangaroo rats, around their burrows leads to increased nutrient availability in soil, plant diversity, and habitat heterogeneity (Ayarbe & Kieft 2000; Schooley et al 2000; Fleming et al 2014). These functional roles have also been observed in species that live in gallery systems such as Microcavia maenas in our study area (Taraborelli et al 2009). However, by using spatial analysis for boundary detection, we found that waste products can be dispersed by both mammal species through land management types, beyond focal sites such as burrow systems.…”

“…The livestock grazing produced a landscape pattern with a high number of gaps in plant distribution and higher spatial heterogeneity (Spirito 2015). Previous studies have shown that habitat conditions on grazed lands increase the risk of predation for prey populations such as rodents (Tabeni et al 2007; Taraborelli et al 2009; Spirito et al 2020). Perception of the habitat as a risky landscape or a “landscape of fear” (Fahrig 2007; Spencer et al 2014; Gaynor et al 2019) could affect species and functional groups of native wildlife in different ways, mainly through its effects on the availability of food and safe sites for feeding and nesting, influencing their use of space, pattern of activity, movement (Thomson et al 2006; Kelt 2011; Spirito et al 2017), and consequently their biodeposition patterns (Earl & Zollner 2017; Ellis‐Soto et al 2021).…”

Behavioural and morphological strategies by small savannah rodents to avoid predation

“…Although not analysed in the present study, intermittent locomotion may also represent an efficient anti-predator strategy: pauses might make prey more cryptic, reduce capture ability if predators are more likely to detect or attack moving prey and improve vigilance for predators (McAdam and Kramer 1998;Kramer and McLaughlin 2001;Vásquez et al 2002;Taraborelli et al 2011). This also needs further investigation for savannah rodents.…”

“…In the case of small rodents, inflated bullae (Webster 1962;Kotler et al 1988), bipedal locomotion with high running speeds and erratic escapes (zigzagging) (Bartholomew and Cary 1954;Djawdan and Garland 1988;Kotler et al 1988;Corley et al 1995;Taraborelli et al 2003;Tabeni et al 2012), intermittent locomotion (McAdam and Kramer 1998;Kramer and McLaughlin 2001;Vásquez et al 2002;Taraborelli et al 2011), lower activity on full moon nights (Clarke 1983;Simonetti 1989;Daly et al 1992;Hughes and Ward 1993;Hughes et al 1994;Vásquez 1994;Orrock et al 2004;Upham and Hafner 2013), use of bushy microhabitats (Price et al 1984;Kotler et al 1988;Pusenius and Ostfeld 2002;Orrock et al 2004;Bisceglia et al 2011;Tabeni et al 2012 and Caswell 1951) and group-living (Yáber and Herrera 1994;Ebensperger and Wallem 2002) are all described as efficient antipredator strategies.…”

The Effect of Soil Physical Properties and Soil Microclimate on Rodent Burrows’ Abundance and their Characteristics in Western Usambara Mountains, Tanzania

“…Climatic variables affecting soil properties, such as temperature and soil moisture, may change suitability of an area for rodent species [18]. It has been reported too that climate determines the burrows' architecture and portal orientation such that portals are oriented towards the sunlight and sun rays' direction, and away from incoming winds [19][20][21]. Other researchers indicated that soil moisture and food availability to rodents encourage burrows' repair and burrowing activities and use [19].…”