The influence of predator and conspecific odor on sex differences in path choice in meadow voles

The response of rodents to scent marks: Four broad hypotheses

“…In contrast, female field voles avoid areas containing the scent marks of predators (Ronkainen and Ylonen, 1994). Vlautin and Ferkin (2012) examined path choices in meadow voles by placing them into in an apparatus containing a short arm and a long arm that both lead to the bedding of a sexually receptive opposite-sex conspecific. Sex differences in path choice were discovered.…”

“…Male voles placed into an empty arena preferred to take the shorter of two paths to reach the bedding of a sexually receptive female; females did not show a preference in the length of the path to reach the bedding of a sexually receptive male. Males however, were less likely than females to enter a path if it contained the scent mark of a samesex conspecific (Vlautin and Ferkin, 2012). Vlautin and Ferkin (2012) suggested that scent marks of another male provide information that allows male voles to avoid taking a path that may bring them into contact with a potential competitor, whereas female voles may take a path that leads them to that scent donor.…”

“…Males however, were less likely than females to enter a path if it contained the scent mark of a samesex conspecific (Vlautin and Ferkin, 2012). Vlautin and Ferkin (2012) suggested that scent marks of another male provide information that allows male voles to avoid taking a path that may bring them into contact with a potential competitor, whereas female voles may take a path that leads them to that scent donor. Perhaps, female voles are attempting to assess phenotype of the scent donor and determine if she is an intruder and a threat or a neighbor (Gosling, 1982;Roberts, 2007).…”

“…This finding suggests that the perceived emotional valence of a social experience may affect each participant differently. It has been suggested that memories perceived as coming from a negative event are more readily encoded and remembered longer than those perceived as coming from a positive event (Baumeister et al, 2001;LaBar and Cabeza, 2006;Stamps and Krishnan, 2001;Vlautin and Ferkin, 2012; but see Wittmann et al, 2008) and are remembered for a longer period of time (Brickman et al, 1978).…”

“…This information is individually distinct (Ferkin et al, in press;Halpin, 1980;Johnston, 1993), supporting Hypothesis 2. This information also allows receivers to recollect the outcome of previous encounters with particular senders (Vlautin and Ferkin, 2012), which would affect their response when they encounter those scent marks again (Apfelback et al, 1991;Ferkin et al, 2008;Franklin and Ferkin et al, 2005). This flexible response to scent marks allows receivers to adjust their responses accordingly, depending on the identity of the sender, past associations and context (Hurst and Beynon, 2004;Kaur et al, 2014;Vlautin and Ferkin, 2013).…”