What limits male range sizes at different population densities? Evidence from three populations of water voles

In many mammalian species, females compete with each other for food and space to raise offspring, while males compete with each other for access to females. Few studies have examined the factors which limit male range sizes or the degree of overlap between male ranges. We deduced four possible responses of the range -sizes of non-territorial male small mammals to increasing population density and/or levels of forage abundance. These were: (1) male range sizes might remain the same irrespective of population density; (2) at high population densities males may become territorial, and their ranges small and non-overlapping; (3) at high forage abundance/population densities, males' ranges may become smaller but remain intra-sexually overlapping; (4) at high forage abundance, male range sizes may increase. We examined the relationship between population density, range lengths and range overlaps and body weights of both sexes in a comparative study of three populations of water voles Arvicola terrestris. Male range sizes were smaller at higher population densities, but their ranges remained both inter- and intra-sexually overlapping. Heavier males had larger ranges than did lighter males at all sites. These results comply with what would be expected if male range sizes were at least partially restricted by the number of ranges of other individuals with which they overlapped. Although we could not discount the hypothesis that forage abundance may also have had a direct effect on male range sizes, our results implied that male range sizes were at least partially determined by social factors.

[1]  M. Jirotkul Population density influences male–male competition in guppies , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  R. Ostfeld,et al.  The ecology of territoriality in small mammals. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[3]  S. Collins,et al.  The response of subordinate male mice to scent marks varies in relation to their own competitive ability , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  B. Gurion,et al.  Relation between home range size and regulation of population size in Microtus ochrogaster , 1980 .

[5]  R. Ostfeld,et al.  DENSITY-DEPENDENT PROCESSES IN MEADOW VOLES: AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH' , 1995 .

[6]  D. Stoddart Breeding and Survival in a Population of Water Voles , 1971 .

[7]  R. Ims Responses in spatial organization and behaviour to manipulations of the food resource in the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus , 1987 .

[8]  N. Slade,et al.  The Impact of Supplemental Food on Movements of Prairie Voles (Microtus ochrogaster) , 1997 .

[9]  R. Ims Male Spacing Systems in Microtine Rodents , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[10]  K. Burnham,et al.  Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals , 1999 .

[11]  R C Littell,et al.  Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[12]  J. Wolff,et al.  Does Access to Females or Competition among Males Limit Male Home-Range Size in a Promiscuous Rodent? , 1999 .

[13]  R. Tamarin,et al.  Movement of Meadow Voles in Response to Food and Density Manipulations: A Test of the Food-Defense and Pup-Defense Hypotheses , 1998 .

[14]  G. O. Batzli,et al.  EFFECTS OF FOOD AVAILABILITY AND PREDATION ON PRAIRIE VOLE DEMOGRAPHY: A FIELD EXPERIMENT' , 1989 .

[15]  J. A. Peterson,et al.  An offspring-defense hypothesis for territoriality in female mammals , 1998 .

[16]  G. O. Batzli,et al.  Effects of food and predation on behaviour of prairie voles : a field experiment , 1990 .

[17]  J. Nelson Intrasexual competition and spacing behaviour in male field voles, Microtus agrestis, under constant female density and spatial distribution , 1995 .

[18]  F. R. Cole,et al.  Influence of Supplemental Feeding on a Vole Population , 1978 .

[19]  D. Lott,et al.  A Review of Ecological Determinants of Territoriality within Vertebrate Species , 2000 .

[20]  S. P. Carter,et al.  Reedbeds as refuges for water voles (Arvicola terrestris) from predation by introduced mink (Mustela vison) , 2003 .

[21]  D. Lott,et al.  Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  Boel Jeppsson Effects of Density and Resources on the Social System of Water Voles , 1990 .

[23]  C. Krebs,et al.  Predation, Cover, and Food Manipulations During a Spring Decline of Microtus townsendii , 1983 .

[24]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  Indirect negative impacts of radio‐collaring: sex ratio variation in water voles , 2005 .

[25]  S. Mills,et al.  Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus , 2003, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  D. Stoddart,et al.  Individual Range, Dispersion and Dispersal in a Population of Water Voles (Arvicola terrestris (L.)) , 1970 .

[27]  R. Ims The potential for sexual selection in males: Effect of sex ratio and spatiotemporal distribution of receptive females , 1988, Evolutionary Ecology.

[28]  The Effect of Watering on a Prairie Vole Population , 1982 .

[29]  J. Nelson Determinants of male spacing behavior in microtines: an experimental manipulation of female spatial distribution and density , 1995, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[30]  N. Pillay,et al.  INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION IN THE SPATIAL AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE AFRICAN STRIPED MOUSE , 2005 .

[31]  J. Newman,et al.  BLOCKING FACTORS AND HYPOTHESIS TESTS IN ECOLOGY: IS YOUR STATISTICS TEXT WRONG? , 1997 .

[32]  R. Ostfeld Limiting Resources and Territoriality in Microtine Rodents , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[33]  S. Emlen,et al.  Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. , 1977, Science.

[34]  T. Mappes,et al.  Determinants of reproductive success in voles: space use in relation to food and litter size manipulation , 2002, Evolutionary Ecology.

[35]  N. Pillay,et al.  Female striped mice (Rhabdomys pumilio) change their home ranges in response to seasonal variation in food availability , 2006 .

[36]  J. Lawton,et al.  HABITAT AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER VOLES: WHY ARE THERE GAPS IN A SPECIES' RANGE? , 1991 .

[37]  James E. Hines,et al.  ESTIMATING TEMPORARY EMIGRATION USING CAPTURE-RECAPTURE DATA WITH POLLOCK'S ROBUST DESIGN , 1997 .

[38]  D. Macdonald,et al.  TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF RANGE USE IN WATER VOLES: DO FEMALES' TERRITORIES DRIFT? , 2005 .

[39]  D. Rankin,et al.  Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  T. Mappes,et al.  Limitation of reproductive success by food availability and litter size in the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  R. Ims Spatial clumping of sexually receptive females induces space sharing among male voles , 1988, Nature.