Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Behavioural responses of voles to simulated risk of predation by a native and an alien mustelid: an odour manipulation experiment

Karen Fey A D , Peter B. Banks B , Hannu Ylönen C and Erkki Korpimäki A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Section of Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland.

B Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.

C Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Konnevesi Research Station, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland.

D Corresponding author. Email: karen.fey@web.de

Wildlife Research 37(4) 273-282 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR08031
Submitted: 27 February 2008  Accepted: 23 April 2010   Published: 28 June 2010

Abstract

Context. Potential mammalian prey commonly use the odours of their co-evolved predators to manage their risks of predation. But when the risk comes from an unknown source of predation, odours might not be perceived as dangerous, and anti-predator responses may fail, except possibly if the alien predator is of the same archetype as a native predator.

Aims. In the present study we examined anti-predator behavioural responses of voles from the outer archipelagos of the Baltic Sea, south-western Finland, where they have had no resident mammalian predators in recent history.

Methods. We investigated responses of field voles (Microtus agrestis) to odours of native least weasels (Mustela nivalis) and a recently invading alien predator, the American mink (Mustela vison), in laboratory. We also studied the short-term responses of free-ranging field voles and bank voles (Myodes glareolus) to simulated predation risk by alien mink on small islands in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea.

Key results. In the laboratory, voles avoided odour cues of native weasel but not of alien mink. It is possible that the response to mink is a context dependent learned response which could not be induced in the laboratory, whereas the response to weasel is innate. In the field, however, voles reduced activity during their normal peak-activity times at night as a response to simulated alien-mink predation risk. No other shifts in space use or activity in safer microhabitats or denser vegetation were apparent.

Conclusions. Voles appeared to recognise alien minks as predators from their odours in the wild. However, reduction in activity is likely to be only a short-term immediate response to mink presence, which is augmented by longer-term strategies of habitat shift. Because alien mink still strongly suppresses vole dynamics despite these anti-predator responses, we suggest that behavioural naiveté may be the primary factor in the impact of an alien predator on native prey.

Implications. Prey naiveté has long been considered as the root cause of the devastating impacts of alien predators, whereby native prey simply fail to recognise and respond to the novel predation risk. Our results reveal a more complex form of naiveté whereby native prey appeared to recognise alien predators as a threat but their response is ultimately inadequate. Thus, recognition alone is unlikely to afford protection for native prey from alien-predator impacts. Thus, management strategies that, for example, train prey in recognition of novel threats must induce effective responses if they are expected to succeed.

Additional keywords: activity, anti-predatory behaviour, behavioural naiveté, carnivores, habitat selection, small rodents.


Acknowledgements

We thank Mikko Ellmén, Lenka Trebaticka and the staff at Konnevesi Research Station for practical help and company during the laboratory experiment. We are especially grateful to William Velmala for boat-driving bravery and spending his birthday alone on an island trapping voles, and to the other trappers Jayne Tipping, Mikael Nordström and Pälvi Salo. Raik Wagner measured light intensities. Vidal Fey gave important logistical and graphical support. Students of the Ph.D. seminar of the Section of Ecology, University of Turku, gave valuable comments on the manuscript. Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation supported the study financially. This work was also supported by ARC Discovery Grants DP0881455 to PBB and EK. All experiments comply with Finnish legislation (Permit No. 1415/04, granted by the Laboratory-animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Turku).


References

Apfelbach, R. , Blanchard, C. D. , Blanchard, R. J. , Hayes, R. A. , and McGregor, I. S. (2005). The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 29, 1123–1144.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Balsam P. D. , and Tomie A. (1985). ‘Context and Learning.’ (Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.)

Banks, P. B. (1998). Responses of Australian bush rats, Rattus fuscipes, to the odor of introduced Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Mammalogy 79, 1260–1264.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Endler J. A. (1991). Interactions between predators and prey. In ‘Behavioural Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach’. (Eds J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies.) pp. 169–196. (Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK.)

Fey, K. , Banks, P. B. , and Korpimäki, E. (2006). Different microhabitat preferences of field and bank voles under manipulated predation risk from an alien predator. Annales Zoologici Fennici 43, 9–16.
Hayes R. A. (2007). Seasonal responses to predator faecal odours in Australian native rodents vary between species. In ‘Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 11’. (Eds J. L. Hurst, R. J. Beynon, S. C. Roberts and T. D. Wyatt.) (Springer: New York.)

Hayes, R. A. , Nahrung, H. F. , and Wilson, J. C. (2006). The response of native Australian rodents to predator odours varies seasonally: a by-product of life history variation? Animal Behaviour 71, 1307–1314.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kenward R. E. , South A. B. , and Walls S. S. (2003). ‘Ranges 6 v1.2: For the Analysis of Tracking and Location Data.’ (Anatrack Ltd: Wareham, UK.)

Klemola, T. , Koivula, M. , Korpimäki, E. , and Norrdahl, K. (2000). Experimental tests of predation and food hypotheses for population cycles of voles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 267, 351–356.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | Ylönen H. (2001). Predator odours and behavioural responses of small rodents: an evolutionary perspective. In ‘Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management II’. (Eds H.-J. Pelz, P. D. Cowan and C. J. Feare.) pp. 123–138. (Filander: Fürth, Germany.)

Ylönen, H. , Jedrzejewska, B. , Jędrzejewski, W. , and Heikkilä, J. (1992). Antipredatory behaviour of Clethrionomys voles – ‘David and Goliath’ arms race. Annales Zoologici Fennici 29, 207–216.


Ylönen, H. , Eccard, J. A. , Jokinen, I. , and Sundell, J. (2006). Is the antipredatory response in behaviour reflected in stress measured in faecal corticosteroids in a small rodent? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60, 350–358.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |