The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanus nanus

Jannett, Frederick J.

doi:10.1007/bf00296312

Cited by 115 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the spatial structure and grouping of many rodents vary with season, habitat conditions, and local density of conspecifics (Jannett 1978, Busher et al 1983, Getz and Hofmann 1986, Sachser 1986, Herrera and Macdonald 1987, Madison and McShea 1987, Armitage 1988, Ferron and Quellet 1989, Zwicker 1989, Jeppsson 1990, Wolff and Cicirello 1990, Ylönen 1990, Meier 1992, Taber and Macdonald 1992, Wauters and Dhondt 1992, Perrin et al 1993, Agrell 1995, Salvioni and Lidicker 1995, Travis et al 1995, Getz and McGuire 1997, Jackson 1999. Such variation may hinder future comparative analyses as most comparative techniques assume intraspecific variation in the trait of interest to be negligible (Martins and Hansen 1996).…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living

Ebensperger

2001

Acta Theriol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ebensperger L. A. 2001. A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living. Acta Theriologica 46: 115-144.I analyze and summarize the empirical evidence supporting alternative hypotheses posed to explain the evolution of rodent group-living. Eight hypotheses are considered: two rely on net fitness benefits to individuals, five rely on ecological and life-history constraints, and one uses elements of both. I expose the logic behind each hypothesis, identify its key predictions, examine how the available evidence on rodent socioecology supports or rejects its predictions, and identify some priorities for future research. I show that empirical support for most hypotheses is meager due to a lack of relevant studies. Also, empirical support for a particular hypothesis, when it exists, comes from studies of the same species used to formulate the original hypothesis. Two exceptions are the hypothesis that individual rodents live in groups to reduce their predation risk and the hypothesis that group-living was adopted by individuals to reduce their cost of thermoregulation. Finally, most hypotheses have been examined without regard to competing hypotheses and often in a restricted taxonomic context. This is clearly an unfortunate situation given that most competing hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. I suggest that in the future comparative approaches should be used. These studies should examine simultaneously the relevance of different benefits and constraints hypothesized to explain the evolution of rodent sociality.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living

Ebensperger

2001

Acta Theriol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also occurs at low vole density in other species [facultative monogamy: Microtus montanus (Jannett 1978)]. In M. ochrogaster, 50% of the breeding units are monogamous year round, both at low and at high density (Getz and Hofmann 1986).…”

Section: Spatial Organization and Mating Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason why maturation of philopatric females is suppressed in some species (M. ochrogaster, McGuire and Getz 1981 ; M. montanus, Jannett 1978, M. pennsylvanicus, Madison 1980, but see Boonstra et al 1987; Clethrionomys, Bujalska 1973;Saitoh 1981;BondrupNielsen 1986;Gilbert et al 1986; but see Gliwicz 1989 for an exception in Clethrionomys gIareolus), but not in others, could be related to the food resources (Ostfeld 1985) or the potential for inbreeding. In monogamous and polygynous species, inbreeding can occur through father-daughter mating if a female matures in her mother's home range.…”

Section: Female Philopatry and Social Organization In Summermentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial organization and mating system of Microtus townsendii

Lambin

Krebs

1991

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Space use by individual Townsend's voles, Microtus townsendii, was investigated in spring and summer by means of radiotelemetry and intensive live trapping in undisturbed grasslands near Vancouver, British Columbia. Home ranges of males were larger than those of females; females had significantly larger ranges in spring than in summer. Most males and females maintained territories free of individuals of the same sex in spring. Male-female pairs had their exclusive territories closely overlapping each other. The 1 : 1 operational sex ratio and the spatial association of pairs of males and females suggest that the voles were monogamous in the spring of 1988 and that 50% of the males were monogamous in the spring of 1989. In summer, there was more intrasexual overlap between home ranges of males and females and female ranges were considerably smaller than those of males. Females were more philopatric than males and females thought to be members of the same family group lived adjacent to each other or had overlapping home ranges. Males overlapped with more than one female in summer, but most females still overlapped with only one male, which suggests that the mating system is polygynous in summer. Thirty-five percent of the philopatric females became pregnant for the first time when the male spatially associated with their mother in the spring was still alive and thus could potentially have mated with their fathers. Male and female territoriality in spring is the proximate mechanism for the limitation of breeding density by spacing behaviour.

show abstract

“…European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus (Cowan 1987;Roberts 1987) Pine vole, Microtus pinetorum (FitzGerald and Madison 1983;Powell and Fried 1992) Montane vole, Microtus montanus (Jannett 1978) Previously (Getz et al 1987(Getz et al , 1990b(Getz et al , 1992(Getz et al , 1993 we included only an overview of part of our available data set; here we provide a more detailed examination of the complete data set related to the formation and maintenance of communal groups in M. ochrogaster. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that communal groups represent the basic social unit of M. ochrogaster.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Communal nesting in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): formation, composition, and persistence of communal groups

Getz¹,

McGuire²

1997

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe factors related to the formation, composition, and persistence of communal groups in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Communal groups formed by the addition of philopatric offspring and unrelated adults to male-female pair and single-female breeding units. Although unrelated adults did not join a group until at least two philopatric offspring 30 days of age were present, there was no relationship between the presence of reproductively active philopatric offspring of the opposite sex and joining of unrelated adults. Most adults that joined a group were reproductive when they joined. Reproductive activation of philopatric offspring was not related to the joining of unrelated adults. During the breeding period all communal groups included 1 or more reproductive adults of each sex; in at least 75% of the-groups, 2 or more adults of each sex were reproductive. There was no relationship between low temperature, snow cover, or population density and formation of communal groups. Dissolution of communal groups was not related to reproductive activation of residents.Resume : Nous dCcrivons ici les facteurs reliCs a la formation, a la composition et au maintien de groupes communautaires chez le Campagnol des Prairies (Microtus ochrogaster). Des groupes communautaires se sont formCs par addition de rejetons philopatriques et d'adultes non apparent& a des couples mile-femelle et a des unitis reproductrices composCes de femelles seules. Les adultes non apparent& ne se sont joints a un groupe qu'a partir du moment oh deux rejetons philopatriques igCs de 30 jours Ctaient dCjh prCsents, mais il n'y avait pas de corrClation entre la prCsence de rejetons philopatriques reproducteurs du sexe opposC et l'addition d'adultes non apparent&. La plupart des adultes qui se sont ajoutCs a un groupe Ctaient dCja actifs sexuellement au moment de leur admission dans le groupe. L'activation d'un comportement reproducteur chez les rejetons philopatriques n'Ctait pas reliCe a l'addition de membres adultes non apparentCs. Au cours de la pCriode de reproduction, tous les groupes communautaires comptaient au moins un adulte reproducteur de chaque sexe; dans au moins 75% des groupes, deux adultes ou plus de chaque sexe Ctaient en phase reproductrice. I1 n'y avait pas de corrClation entre les basses tempkratures, la couverture de neige ou la densit6 de la population et la formation de groupes communautaires. La dissolution de groupes communautaires n'Ctait pas reliCe a l'activation reproductrice des rCsidants. [Traduit par la Redaction]

show abstract

The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanus nanus

Cited by 115 publications

References 28 publications

A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living

A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living

Spatial organization and mating system of Microtus townsendii

Communal nesting in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): formation, composition, and persistence of communal groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About