NATAL DISPERSAL AND PHILOPATRY IN PRAIRIE VOLES (MICROTUS-OCHROGASTER) - SETTLEMENT, SURVIVAL, AND POTENTIAL REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS

被引:34
作者
GETZ, LL
MCGUIRE, B
HOFMANN, JE
PIZZUTO, T
FRASE, B
机构
[1] Department of Ecology, Ethology, and Evolution, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801-3799, 515 Morrill Hall
[2] Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
[3] Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL
[4] Department of Entomology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
[5] Department of Biology, Bradley University, Peoria, IL
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
NATAL DISPERSAL; PHILOPATRY; VOLES; SURVIVAL; SETTLEMENT; REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL;
D O I
10.1080/08927014.1994.9522980
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
We analyzed the costs and benefits of natal dispersal and philopatry in a free-living population of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster, in which 70% of the males and 75% of the females were philopatric. Rather than settling into a nest, 40% of male dispersers continued to wander throughout the study area, while only 13% of female dispersers did so. Whereas males were more likely to wander in spring-early autumn during low density periods, females were more likely to wander during spring-early autumn, irrespective of population density. Of those animals that settled into a nest, females were more likely than males to settle as single individuals. Same-sex siblings that dispersed commonly joined the same social group. Although often settling within 5 m of each other, opposite-sex siblings that dispersed never joined the same social group or formed a male-female pair. Total length of life was longer for males and females that dispersed than for those that remained at the natal nest. Animals survived longer after dispersal if they settled greater than or equal to 30 m from the natal nest than if they settled less than or equal to 30 m from the natal nest. Length of survival following dispersal was not correlated with age at time of dispersal. Fitness of female dispersers was 2.5 times that of philopatric females, estimated by comparison of the percent becoming reproductive, survival time after becoming reproductive, and the estimated number of female offspring per litter that survive to adult age. The success of dispersers may be related to the high food resource habitat in which the study was conducted.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 284
页数:18
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
Ambrose H.W., Effect of habitat familiarity and toe-clipping on rate of owl predation in Microtus pennsylvanicus, Journal of Mammalogy, 53, pp. 909-912, (1972)
[2]  
Bekoff M., Mammalian dispersal and the ontogeny of individual behavioral phenotypes, American Naturalist, 111, pp. 715-732, (1977)
[3]  
Boyce C.C.K., Boyce J.L., Population biology of Microtus arvalis. II. Natal and breeding dispersal of females, Journal of Animal Ecology, 57, pp. 723-736, (1988)
[4]  
Carter C.S., Getz L.L., Gavish L., McDermott J.L., Arnold P., Male-related pheromones and the activation of female reproduction in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), Biology of Reproduction, 23, pp. 1038-1045, (1980)
[5]  
Clutton-Brock T.H., Albon S.D., Guinness F.E., Competition between female relatives in a matrilocal mammal, Nature, 300, pp. 178-180, (1982)
[6]  
Cole F.R., Batzli G.O., Nutrition and population dynamics of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster, in central Illinois, Journal of Animal Ecology, 48, pp. 455-470, (1979)
[7]  
Fitch H.S., Aspects of reproduction and development in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, 10, pp. 131-161, (1957)
[8]  
Gavish L., Hofmann J.E., Getz L.L., Sibling recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster, Animal Behaviour, 32, pp. 362-366, (1984)
[9]  
Getz L.L., Gutermuth D.F., Benson S.M., Pattern of nest occupancy of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster, The American Midland Naturalist, 128, pp. 197-202, (1992)
[10]  
Getz L.L., Hofmann J.E., Social organization in free-living prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 18, pp. 275-282, (1986)