IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v15y2004i2p286-289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: a field-laboratory validation

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry O. Wolff

Abstract

Predators use scent to locate their prey, and prey animals often alter their behavior in response to predation risk. I tested the hypothesis that voles would decrease their frequency of scent marking in response to predation risk. I conducted trials in which prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, and woodland voles, M. pinetorum, were allowed to scent mark ceramic tiles placed in their runways in the field. The tiles were subjected to one of three treatments: scented with odor from mink, Mustela vison (a rodent predator); rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus (a nonpredator mammal control); and no odor (control). No significant differences were found in the frequency of scent marking in response to the three treatments for either species. To validate that voles did not decrease their scent marking in response to predation risk, I brought male prairie voles from the field site into the laboratory and allowed them to scent mark white paper substrate treated with mink odor, rabbit odor, or no odor. No significant differences were found in the frequency of scent marks in response to the three treatments. These results differ from what was predicted based on laboratory studies with other species of rodents that show avoidance, reproductive suppression, decreased activity, and reduced scent marking in response to odors of predators. Voles appear to scent mark different substrates and under a wide variety of social and environmental situations, and this is not influenced by the presence of odor from a predator. Copyright 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry O. Wolff, 2004. "Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: a field-laboratory validation," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(2), pages 286-289, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:2:p:286-289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:2:p:286-289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.