The spatial-and-ethological population structure, cooperation, and the evolution of sociality in rodents

in Behaviour
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

There are two types of complex social units — aggregations and family groups — in rodent populations, with an essential difference in their social organization. The impact of ecological factors on the evolution of sociality in rodents (the transition from solitary towards family-group lifestyle) is still unclear. The inter-specific comparative analysis based on quantification of social traits related to the spatial-and-ethological population structure and cooperation allows author to propose a new conceptual approach to the assessment of differences between the species under consideration in terms of the evolution of sociality. A new conceptual model of the evolution of sociality in rodents should incorporate ecological conditions and social factors, including cooperation, operating as a complex of selective forces promoting formation of family groups.

The spatial-and-ethological population structure, cooperation, and the evolution of sociality in rodents

in Behaviour

Sections

References

  • AbashkinS.A. (1972). [ Some features of behavior of the muskrat.]. — In: [ Animal behavior: ecological and evolutionary aspects.]. NaukaMoscow p.  230-232. (In Russian).

  • ÅgrenG. (1979). Field observations of social behaviour in a Saharan gerbil: Meriones libycus. — Mammalia 43: 135-146.

  • ÅgrenG.ZhouQ.ZhongW. (1989a). Ecology and social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils, Meriones unguiculatus, at Xilinhot, Inner Mongolia, China. — Anim. Behav. 37: 11-27.

  • ÅgrenG.ZhouQ.ZhongW. (1989b). Territoriality, cooperation and resource priority in the Mongolian gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus. — Anim. Behav. 37: 28-32.

  • AlexanderR.D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 325-383.

  • AlhoC.J.R. (1979). Relative exclusiveness of use of space as a measure of spatial distribution of mammal populations. — Rev. Bras. Biol. 39: 275-279.

  • AmbroseH.W. (1973). An experimental study of some factors affecting the spatial and temporal activity of Microtus pennsylvanicus. — J. Mammal. 54: 79-100.

  • ArmitageK.B. (1962). Social behavior of the yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris). — Anim. Behav. 10: 319-331.

  • ArmitageK.B. (1974). Male behaviour and territoriality in the yellow-bellied marmot. — J. Zool. Lond. 172: 233-265.

  • ArmitageK.B. (1981). Sociality as a life-history tactic of ground squirrels. — Oecologia (Berlin) 48: 36-49.

  • ArmitageK.B. (1996). Social dynamics, kinship, and population dynamics of marmots. — In: Biodiversity in marmots ( Le BerreM.RamousseR.Le GuelteL. eds). International Marmot NetworkMoscow–Lyon p.  113-128.

  • ArmitageK.B. (1999). Evolution of sociality in marmots. — J. Mammal. 80: 1-10.

  • ArmitageK.B. (2007). Evolution of sociality in marmots: it begins with hibernation. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  356-367.

  • ArnoldW. (1990a). The evolution of marmot sociality: I. Why disperse late?Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 229-237.

  • ArnoldW. (1990b). The evolution of marmot sociality: II. Costs and benefits of joint hibernation. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 239-246.

  • BarashD.P. (1974). The evolution of marmot societies: a general theory. — Science 185: 415-420.

  • BarnettS.A. (1963). The rat: a study in behaviour. — AldineChicago, IL.

  • BennettN.C.FaulkesC.G. (2000). African mole-rats: ecology and eusociality. — Cambridge University PressCambridge.

  • BennettN.C.JarvisJ.U.M. (1988). The social structure and reproductive biology of colonies of the mole-rat, Cryptomys damarensis (Rodentia, bathyergidae). — J. Mammal. 69: 293-302.

  • BlackburnG.S.WilsonD.J.KrebsC.J. (1998). Dispersal of juvenile collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus) in a high-density population. — Can. J. Zool. 76: 2255-2261.

  • BlumsteinD.T.ArmitageK.B. (1997). Does sociality drive the evolution of communicative complexity? A comparative test with ground-dwelling sciurid alarm calls. — Am. Nat. 150: 179-200.

  • BlumsteinD.T.ArmitageK.B. (1998). Life history consequences of social complexity: a comparative study of ground-dwelling sciurids. — Behav. Ecol. 9: 8-19.

  • BovetJ. (1972). On the social behaviour in a stable group of long-tailed field mice (Apodemus silvaticus). I. An interpretation of defensive postures. — Behaviour 41: 41-54.

  • BowenD.W.BrooksR.J. (1978). Social organization of confined male collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Traill). — Anim. Behav. 26: 1126-1135.

  • BoyceC.C.K.BoyceJ.L.III (1988). Population biology of Microtus arvalis. — J. Anim. Ecol. 57: 711-754.

  • BranchL.C. (1993). Social organization and mating system of the plain viscacha (Lagostomus maximus). — J. Zool. (Lond.) 229: 473-491.

  • BronsonF. (1979). The reproductive ecology of the house mouse. — Q. Rev. Biol. 54: 265-299.

  • BujalskaG.SaitohT. (2000). Territoriality and its consequences. — Pol. J. Ecol. 48(Suppl.): 37-49.

  • BurdaH. (1990). Constraints of pregnancy and evolution of sociality in mole-rats with special reference to reproductive and social patterns in Cryptomys hottentotus (Bathiergidae, Rodentia). — Z. Zool. Syst. Evol. 28: 26-39.

  • BurdaH.HoneycuttR.H.BegallS.Locker-GrütjenO.ScharffA. (2000). Are naked and common mole-rats eusocial, and if so, why?. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47: 293-303.

  • BusherP. (2007). Social organization and monogamy in the beaver. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  280-290.

  • ChoM.M.De VriesA.C.WilliamsJ.R.CarterC.S. (1999). The effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on partner preferences in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). — Behav. Neurosci. 113: 1071-1079.

  • ClarkM.GalefB.G. (2000). Why some male Mongolian gerbils may help at the nest: testosterone, asexuality and alloparenting. — Anim. Behav. 59: 801-806.

  • ClarkM.DesousD.VonkJ.GalefB.G. (1997). Parenting and potency: alternative routes to reproductive success in male Mongolian gerbils. — Anim. Behav. 54: 635-642.

  • CorbetN.U.van AardeR.J. (1996). Social organization and space use in the Cape porcupine in a southern African savanna. — Afr. J. Ecol. 34: 1-14.

  • CrookJ.H. (1970). Social organization and the environment: aspects of contemporary social ethology. — Anim. Behav. 18: 197-209.

  • CrookJ.H.EllisJ.E.Goss-CustardJ.D. (1976). Mammalian social systems: structure and function. — Anim. Behav. 24: 261-274.

  • CrowcroftP. (1955). Territoriality in wild house mice, Mus musculus. — J. Mammal. 36: 299-301.

  • CrowcroftP.RoweF.P. (1963). Social organization and territorial behaviour in the wild house mouse (Mus musculus). — Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 140: 517-531.

  • DalyM.DalyS. (1974). Spatial distribution of a leaf-eating Saharan gerbil (Psammomys obesus) in relation to its food. — Mammalia 38: 591-603.

  • DalyM.DalyS. (1975a). Socio-ecology of Saharan gerbils, especially Meriones libycus. — Mammalia 39: 298-311.

  • DalyM.DalyS. (1975b). Behaviour of Psammomys obesus (Rodentia: Gerbillinae) in the Algerian Sahara. — Z. Tierpsychol. 39: 298-321.

  • De JongeG. (1983). Aggression and group formation in the voles Microtus agrestis, M. arvalis and Clethrionomys glareolus in relation to intra- and inrespecific competition. — Behaviour 84: 1-73.

  • DieterlenF. (1962). Geburt und Geburtschilfe bei der Stachelmaus, Acomys cahirinus. — Z. Tierpsychol. 19: 191-222.

  • DubrovskyYu.A. (1978). [ Gerbils and natural loci of the skin leishmaniasis.]. — Nauka Publ.Moscow. (In Russian).

  • DudleyD. (1974a). Contributions of paternal care to the growth and development of the young in Peromyscus californicus. — Behav. Biol. 11: 155-166.

  • DudleyD. (1974b). Paternal behavior in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. — Behav. Biol. 11: 247-252.

  • EbenspergerL.A. (1998). Sociality in rodents: The New World fossorial hystricognaths as study model. — Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 71: 65-77.

  • EbenspergerL.A. (2001). A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group living. — Acta Theriol. 46: 115-144.

  • EbenspergerL.A.BozinovicF. (2000). Communal burrowing in the hystricognath rodent, Octodon degus: a benefit of sociality?. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47: 365-369.

  • EbenspergerL.A.CofréH. (2001). On the evolution of group-living in the New World cursorial hystricognath rodents. — Behav. Ecol. 12: 227-236.

  • EbenspergerL.A.VelosoC.WallemP.K. (2002). Do female degus communally nest and nurse their pups?J. Ethol. 20: 143-146.

  • EisenbergJ.F. (1981). The mammalian radiations. — University of Chicago PressChicago, IL.

  • ElwoodR.W. (1975). Paternal and maternal behaviour in the Mongolian gerbil. — Anim. Behav. 23: 766-772.

  • ElwoodR.W. (1983). Paternal care in rodents. — In: Paternal behaviour of rodents ( ElwoodR.W. ed.). WileyChichester p.  235-257.

  • EvdokimovN.G. (2001). [ Population ecology of the mole vole.]. — Ural Branch of RASEkaterinburg. (In Russian).

  • FangJ.SunR. (1991). Seasonal dynamics of the spatial patterns of Brandt’s voles. — Acta Ecol. Sin. 11: 111-116.

  • FaulkesC.G.BennettN.C.BrufordM.W.O’BrienH.P.AguilarG.H.JarvisJ.U.M. (1997). Ecological constraints drive social evolution in African mole-rats. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 264: 1619-1627.

  • FaulkesC.G.BennettN.C. (2007). African mole-rats: social and ecological diversity. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  427-437.

  • FeoktistovaN.Yu. (2008). [ Hamsters of genus Phodopus. Systematics phylogeography ecology physiology behavior chemical communication.]. — KMK PressMoscow. (In Russian).

  • FitzgeraldR.W.MadisonD.M. (1983). Social organization of a free-ranging population of pine voles, Microtus pinetorum. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13: 183-187.

  • FosterJ.GainesM.S. (1991). The effects of successional habitat mosaic on a small mammal community. — Ecology 72: 1358-1373.

  • FrancisD.MeaneyM.J. (1999). Maternal care and the development of stress responses. — Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 9: 128-134.

  • FrancisD.DiorioJ.LiuD.MeanyM.J. (1999). Nongenomic transmission across generations of maternal behavior and stress responses in the rat. — Science 286: 1155-1158.

  • FrenchJ.A. (1994). Alloparents in the Mongolian gerbil: impact on long-term reproductive performance of breeders and opportunities for independent reproduction. — Behav. Ecol. 5: 273-279.

  • GerlachG. (1990). Dispersal mechanisms in a captive wild house mouse population (Mus domesticus Rutty). — Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 41: 271-277.

  • GetzL.L. (1985). Habitats. — In: Biology of New World Microtus Stillwater ( TamarinR.H. ed.). The American Society of MammalogistsOklahoma City, OK p.  286-309.

  • GetzL.L.CarterC.S. (1980). Social organization in Microtus ochrogaster populations. — Biologist 62: 56-69.

  • GetzL.L.HofmannJ.E. (1986). Social organization in free-living prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 275-282.

  • GetzL.L.McGuireB. (1997). Communal nesting in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): formation, composition, and persistence of communal groups. — Can. J. Zool. 75: 525-534.

  • GetzL.L.McGuireB.PizzutoT.HofmannJ.E.FraseB. (1993). Social organization of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). — J. Mammal. 74: 44-58.

  • GonzalezA.LovicV.WardG.R.WainwrightP.E.FlemingA.S. (2001). Intergenerational effects of complete maternal deprivation and replacement stimulation on maternal behaviour and emotionality in female rats. — Dev. Psychobiol. 38: 11-32.

  • GromovV.S. (2001). Day-time activities and social interactions in a colony of the fat sand rats, Psammomys obesus, at the Negev Highlands, Israel. — Mammalia 65: 13-28.

  • GromovV.S. (2005). Parental care in captive Brandt vole (Lasiopodomys brandti). — Russ. J. Theriol. 4: 137-145.

  • GromovV.S. (2007). Spatial ethological structure and evolution of sociality in rodents. — Dokl. Biol. Sci. 412: 46-48.

  • GromovV.S. (2008). [ The spatial-and-ethological population structure in rodents.]. — KMK PressMoscow. (In Russian).

  • GromovV.S. (2009). Interactions of partners in family pairs, care of the offspring, and the role of tactile stimulation in formation of parental behavior of the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) under laboratory conditions. — Biol. Bull. 36: 479-488.

  • GromovV.S. (2011a). Parental care tactile stimulation and sociality evolution in rodents: behavioural physiological and developmental aspects. — LambertSaarbrücken.

  • GromovV.S. (2011b). Pair-bonding and parental care in cricetid rodents: a comparative study. — Acta Theriol. 56: 23-33.

  • GromovV.S. (2011c). Biparental care, tactile stimulation, and evolution of sociality in rodents. — J. Evol. Biol. Res. 3: 33-43.

  • GromovV.S. (2011d). Rodents and space: what behavior do we study under semi-natural and laboratory conditions? — In: Rodents: habitat pathology and environmental impact ( TriunveryA.ScaliseD. eds). NovaHauppauge, NY p.  43-60.

  • GromovV.S. (2013a). Care of young and the effect of the presence of a male on parental behavior in the common vole (Microtus arvalis) in captivity. — Cont. Probl. Ecol. 6: 330-335.

  • GromovV.S. (2013b). [ Parental care in rodents.]. — KMK PressMoscow. (In Russian).

  • GromovV.S. (2014). Complicated social structure and the evolution of sociality in rodents: cooperation as the main promoting factor. — In: Social behavior: evolutionary pathways environmental influences and impairments ( WatsonP. ed.). NovaHauppauge, NY p.  71-119.

  • GromovV.S. (2017). The evolution of sociality in rodents: a family affair. — Russ. J. Theriol. 16: 11-38.

  • GromovV.S.IlchenkoO.G. (2007). [ Use of space and social organization in Gerbillus perpallidus under semi-natural conditions.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 86: 1131-1140. (In Russian with English summary).

  • GromovV.S.PopovS.V. (1979). [ Some peculiarities of spatial-ethological structure of the clawed jird (Meriones unguiculatus) colonies and attempts of influencing it with pharmaca]. — Zool. Zhurnal 58: 1528-1535. (In Russian with English summary).

  • GromovV.S.Vorob’evaT.V. (1995). [ Behavior of the midday gerbil (Meriones meridianus) under semi-natural conditions. 1. Use of space and social organization]. — Zool. Zhurnal 74: 101-116. (In Russian with English summary).

  • GromovV.S.KrasnovB.R.ShenbrotG.I. (2000). Space use in Wagner’s gerbil, Gerbillus dasyurus (Wagner, 1842), in the Negev Highlands, Israel. — Acta Theriol. 45: 175-182.

  • GromovV.S.SurovA.V.RyurikovG.B. (2006). Maternal care in captive grey hamster textitCricetulus migratorius. — Russ. J. Theriol. 5: 73-77.

  • Gruder-AdamsS.GetzL.L. (1985). Comparison of the mating system and paternal behaviour in Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus pennsylvanicus. — J. Mammal. 66: 165-167.

  • GubernickD.J.AlbertsJ.R. (1987). The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. — J. Comp. Psychol. 101: 169-177.

  • GubernickD.J.AlbertsJ.R. (1989). Postpartum maintenance of paternal behaviour in the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. — Anim. Behav. 37: 656-664.

  • HareJ.F.MurieJ.O. (2007). Ecology, kinship, and ground squirrel sociality: insights from comparative analyses. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  345-355.

  • HartungT.G.DewsburyD.A. (1979). Paternal behavior of six species of muroid rodents. — Behav. Neural Biol. 26: 446-478.

  • HayesL.D.CheshA.S.CastroR.A.TolhuysenL.O.BurgerJ.R.BhattacharjeeJ.EbenspergerL.A. (2009). Fitness consequences of group living in the degu Octodon degus, a plural breeder rodent with communal care. — Anim. Behav. 78: 131-139.

  • HealeyM.C. (1967). Aggression and self-regulation of population size in deermice. — Ecology 48: 377-392.

  • HeiseS.WielandH.LippkeJ. (1999). Kin interactions and infanticidal behaviour in the common vole Microtus arvalis. — In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Mammology Finland May 29–June 2 1999 p. 110.

  • HooglandJ.L. (1981). The evolution of coloniality in white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Sciuridae: Cynomys leucurus and C. ludovicianus). — Ecology 62: 252-272.

  • HornerB.E. (1961). Paternal care and conclusive seizures in the grasshopper mouse. — Am. Zool. 1: 360.

  • IshibashiY.SaitohS.KawataM. (1998). Social organization of the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus and its demographic and genetic consequences: a review. — Res. Popul. Ecol. 40: 39-50.

  • JannettF.J.Jr. (1978). The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanus nanus. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 3: 245-263.

  • JannettF.J.Jr. (1981). Sex ratios in high density populations of the montane vole, Microtus montanus, and the behavior of territorial males. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 297-307.

  • JannettF.J.Jr. (1982). Nesting patterns of adult voles, Microtus montanus, in field populations. — J. Mammal. 63: 495-498.

  • JansonC.H.GoldsmithM.L. (1995). Predicting group size in primates: foraging costs and predation risk. — Behav. Ecol. 6: 326-336.

  • JarvisJ.U.M. (1978). Energetics of survival in Heterocephalus glaber (Rüppel), the naked mole-rat (Rodentia, Bathyergidae). — Bull. Carnegie Mus. Natl. Hist. 6: 81-87.

  • JarvisJ.U.M. (1981). Eusociality in a mammal: cooperative breeding in naked mole-rat colonies. — Science 212: 571-573.

  • JarvisJ.U.M. (1985). Ecological studies on Heterocephalus glaber the naked mole-rat in Kenia. — Nat. Geogr. Soc. Res. Rep. 1979 Projects p. 429-437.

  • JarvisJ.U.M.SaleJ.B. (1971). Burrowing and burrow patterns in East-African mole-rats Tachyoryctes, Heliophobius and Heterocephalus. — J. Zool. 163: 451-479.

  • JarvisJ.U.M.O’RiainM.J.BennettN.C.ShermanP.W. (1994). Mammalian eusociality: a family affair. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 47-51.

  • KalelaO. (1957). Regulation of reproduction rate in subarctic populations of the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus (Sund.). — Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A 4: 7-60.

  • KarasevaE.V. (1957). [ Some features of biology of the root vole studied with the method of marking individuals.]. — Voprosy Ekologii 2: 141-150. (In Russian).

  • KarasevaE.V.Il’enkoA.I. (1957). [ Some features of biology of the root vole studied with the method of marking individuals.]. — [ Fauna and ecology of rodents] 5: 171-184. (In Russian).

  • KasatkinM.V. (2002). [The biology ecology and the population structure of the social vole (Microtus socialis Pall.)]. — In: [Proc. Timirjasev’s State Biol. Museum.] Moscow p. 103-142. (In Russian).

  • KawataM. (1985). Mating system and reproductive success in a spring population of the red-backed vole, Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae. — Oikos 45: 181-190.

  • KawataM. (1988). Mating success, spatial organization, and male characteristics in experimental field populations of the red-backed vole C. rufocanus bedfordiae. — J. Anim. Ecol. 57: 217-235.

  • KhokhlovaI.S.KrasnovB.R. (1986). [ Some mechanisms of density regulation in the house mouse groups with different types of the spatial structure.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 65: 407-415. (In Russian with English summary).

  • KokkoH.JohnstoneR.A.Clutton-BrockT.H. (2001). The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 268: 187-196.

  • KoshkinaT.V.OkulovaN.M.AristovaV.A. (1972). [ The spatial relationships and their role in regulation of population density in rodents.]. — Trudy Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody 48: 215-237. (In Russian).

  • KotenkovaE.V.MuntyanuA.I. (2006). [ Comparative analysis of the spatial-and-ethological population structure in commensal and wild mice Mus musculus sensu lato: mechanism of formation and maintenance of the SEPS.]. — Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii 126(5): 513-528. (In Russian with English summary).

  • KruchenkovaE.P.GoltsmanM.E. (1977). [ Relationships between parents and their offspring in captive great gerbils.]. — In: [ Ecology and epidemiological significance of gerbils in the USSR fauna.]. NaukaAshkhabad p.  207-208. (In Russian).

  • KryazhimskyF.V.MalafeevYu.M.DobrinskyL.N. (1980). [ Some features of space use system of the root vole in the year of increasing population at southern Yamal.]. — In: [ Ecological aspects of animal behavior.]. NaukaSverdlovsk p.  82-91. (In Russian).

  • Kryl’tsovA.I. (1955). [ Reproduction of muroid rodents in Northern Kazakhstan during winter periods.]. — Trudy Moskowskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody 60: 1-8. (In Russian).

  • KucherukV.V.KulikI.L.DubrovskyYu.A. (1972). [ The great gerbil as a desert life form.]. — In: [ Some data for investigation of flora and fauna of the USSR. Issue 47.]. NaukaMoscow p.  5-70. (In Russian).

  • KvashninC.A.KarasevaE.V. (1985). [ The spatial-and-ethological population structure and behavior of the Norway rat in natural habitats.]. — In: [ Distribution and ecology of the Norway rat and the method of the control of its populations.]. NaukaMoscow p.  129-146. (In Russian).

  • LaceyE.A. (2004). Sociality reduces individual direct fitness in a communally breeding rodent, the colonial tuco-tuco (Ctenomys sociabilis). — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56: 449-457.

  • LaceyE.A.EbenspergerL.A. (2007). Social structure in octodontid and ctenomyid rodents. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago p.  403-415.

  • LaceyE.A.ShermanP.W. (2007). The ecology of sociality in rodents. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  243-254.

  • LaceyE.A.BraudeS.H.WieczrekJ.R. (1997). Burrow sharing by colonial tuco-tucos (Ctenomys sociabilis). — J. Mammal. 78: 556-562.

  • LangsdaleA.YoungV. (1999). Social organisation and territoriality in the Orkney vole (Microtus arvalis orcadensis). — In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Mammology Finland May 29–June 2 1999 p. 171.

  • LeeP.C. (1994). Social structure and evolution. — In: Behavior and evolution ( SlaterP.J.B.HallidayT.R. eds). Cambridge University PressCambridge p.  266-303.

  • LibhaberN.EilamD. (2004). Parental investment in social voles varies and is relatively independent of litter size. — J. Mammal. 85: 748-755.

  • LidickerW.L. (1976). Social behaviour and density regulation in house mice living in large enclosures. — J. Anim. Ecol. 5: 677-697.

  • LidickerW.Z.Jr. (1979). Analysis of two freely-growing enclosed populations of the California vole. — J. Mammal. 60: 447-466.

  • LidickerW.Z.Jr. (1980). The social biology of the California vole. — Biologist 62: 46-55.

  • LiuY.WangZ.X. (2003). Nucleus accumbens oxytocin and dopamine interact to regulate pair bond formation in female prairie voles. — Neuroscience 121: 537-544.

  • LobachevV.S.PaskhinaN.M. (1972). [ Behavior and activity patterns in the great gerbil.]. — In: [ Animal behavior: ecological and evolutionary aspects.]. Nauka Publ.Moscow p.  220-222. (In Russian).

  • MacdonaldD.W. (1981). Feeding associations between capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and some bird species. — Ibis 123: 364-366.

  • MadisonD.M. (1980a). Space use and social structure in meadow volee, Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7: 65-71.

  • MadisonD.M. (1980b). An integrated view of the social biology of Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Biologist 62: 20-33.

  • MadisonD.M. (1984). Group nesting and its ecological and evolutionary significance in overwintering microtine rodents. — Special Publications of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History: 267-274.

  • MalloryF.F.BrooksR.J. (1978). Infanticide and other reproductive strategies in the collared lemming, Dicrostonyx groenlandicus. — Nature 273: 144-146.

  • MankinP.C.GetzL.L. (1994). Burrow morphology as related to social organization of Microtus ochrogaster. — J. Mammal. 75: 492-499.

  • MarinelliL.MessierF. (1993). Space use and the social system of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). — Can. J. Zool. 71: 869-875.

  • MarinelliL.MessierF. (1995). Parental care strategies among muskrats in a female-biased population. — Can. J. Zool. 73: 1503-1510.

  • MarlerP. (1977). The evolution of communication. — In: How animals communicate ( SebeokT.A. ed.). Indiana University PressBloomington, IN p.  45-70.

  • McCartyR.SouthwickC.H. (1977). Patterns of parental care in two cricetid rodents, Onychomys torridus and Peromyscus leucopus. — Anim. Behav. 25: 945-948.

  • McGuireB. (1988). Effects of cross-fostering on parental behaviour of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). — J. Mammal. 69: 332-341.

  • McGuireB. (1997). Influence of father and pregnancy on maternal care in red-backed voles. — J. Mammal. 78: 839-849.

  • McGuireB.NovakM. (1984). A comparison of maternal behaviour in the meadow vole (Mictotus pennsylvanicus), prairie vole (M. ochrogaster) and pine vole (M. pinetorum). — Anim. Behav. 32: 1132-1141.

  • McGuireB.NovakM. (1986). Parental care and its relation to social organization in the montane vole. — J. Mammal. 67: 305-311.

  • MetzgarL.H. (1971). Behavioral population regulation in the wood mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. — Amer. Midl. Nat. 86: 434-448.

  • MetzgarL.H. (1973). A comparison of trap- and track-revealed home ranges in Peromyscus. — J. Mammal. 54: 513-515.

  • MichenerG.R. (1983). Kin identification, matriarchies and the evolution of sociality in ground-dwelling sciurids. — In: Recent advances in the study of mammalian behaviour American Society of Mammologists Special publication no. 7 ( EisenbergJ.F.KleimanD.G. eds). American Society of MammologistsOklahoma City, OK p.  528-572.

  • MihokS. (1979). Behavioral structure and demography of subarctic Clethrionomys gapperi and Peromyscus maniculatus. — Can. J. Zool. 57: 1520-1535.

  • MoltenoA.J.BennettN.C. (2002a). Rainfall, dispersal, and reproductive inhibition in eusocial Damaraland mole-rats (Cryptomys damarensis). — J. Zool. Lond. 256: 445-448.

  • MoltenoA.J.BennettN.C. (2002b). An ovulation in nonreproductive female Damaraland mole-rats (Cryptomys damarensis). — J. Reprod. Fert. 119: 35-41.

  • MontgomeryW.I. (1979). Trap-revealed home range in sympatric populations of Apodemus sylvaticus and A. flavicollis. — J. Zool. Lond. 189: 535-540.

  • MontgomeryW.I. (1980). Spatial organization in sympatric populations of Apodemus sylvaticus and A. flavicollis (Rodentia: Muridae). — J. Zool. Lond. 192: 379-401.

  • MuntyanuA.I. (1990). Ecological features of an overwintering population of the hillock mouse (Mus hortulanus Nordm.) in the south-west of the USSR. — Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 41: 73-82.

  • NaumovN.P. (1956). [ Marking of mammals and investigation of their interspecific relationships.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 35: 3-15. (In Russian with English summary).

  • NaumovN.P.LobachevV.S.DmitrievP.P.SmirinV.M. (1972). [ The plague natural locus in Aral Karakums.]. — Moscow University PressMoscow. (In Russian).

  • NelsonJ. (1995). Intrasexual competition and spacing behaviour in male field voles, Microtus agrestis, under constant female density and spatial distribution. — Oikos 73: 9-14.

  • NicholsonA.J. (1941). The homes and social habits of the woodmouse (Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis) in southern Michigan. — Am. Midl. Nat. 25: 196-223.

  • NikitinaN.A. (1958). [ Use of space in the field mouse (Apodemus agrarius pall).]. — Zool. Zhurnal 37(9): 1397-1408. (In Russian with English summary).

  • NovikovE.PetrovskyD.KolosovaI.SteinlechnerS.MoshkinM. (2004). Interactions between intruders and residents in the mole vole Ellobius talpinus. — Acta Zool. Sin. 50: 19-26.

  • NowakR.M. (1999). Walker’s mammals of the world6th edn.The John Hopkins University PressBaltimore, MD.

  • NumanM.InselT. (2003). The neurobiology of parental behavior. — SpringerNew York, NY.

  • NunesS. (2007). Dispersal and philopatry. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  150-162.

  • OliverasD.NovakM. (1986). A comparison of paternal behavior in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum, and prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. — Anim. Behav. 34: 519-526.

  • OrlovV.A. (1976). A comparative behavioral study of collared and Siberian lemmings from a typical tundra of northeastern Taimyr. — In: Behavior of animals in groups. NaukaMoscow p.  289-291. (In Russian).

  • OrsiniP.BonhommeF.Britton-DavidianJ.CrosetH.GerasimovS.ThalerL. (1983). Le complexe d’espećes du genre Mus en Europe Centrale et Orientale. II Critères d’identification, repartition et caractèristiques ècologiques. — Z. Saügetierk. 48: 86-95.

  • OsipovaO.V. (1998). [ Social relationships in captive field voles (Microtus agrestis).]. — Zool. Zhurnal 77: 959-963. (In Russian with English summary).

  • OsipovaO.V.SerbenyukM.A. (1992). Social relationships in the red-backed vole (Clethrionomys rutilus) under semi-natural conditions.]. — In: [ Behavior and communication of mammals.]. NaukaMoscow p.  114-137. (In Russian).

  • OstfeldR.S. (1985). Limiting resources and territoriality in microtine rodents. — Am. Nat. 126: 1-15.

  • OstfeldR.S. (1986). Territoriality and mating system of California voles. — J. Anim. Ecol. 55: 691-706.

  • OstfeldR.S. (1990). The ecology of territoriality in small mammals. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 411-415.

  • OstfeldR.S.PughS.R.SeamonJ.O.TamarinR.H. (1988). Space use and reproductive success in a population of meadow voles. — J. Anim. Ecol. 57: 385-394.

  • PanchenkoV.A. (1983). [ Some features of use of space in the field mouse.]. — In: [ Animal behavior in their communities.]. NaukaMoscow p.  109-110. (In Russian).

  • ParrishJ.K.HamnerW.M.PrewittC.T. (1997). Introduction — from individuals to aggregations: unifying properties, global framework, and the bogy grails of aggregation. — In: Animal groups in three dimensions ( ParrishJ.K.HamnerW.M. eds). Cambridge University PressCambridge p.  1-13.

  • PatenaudeF. (1983). Care of young in a family of wild beavers, Castor canadensis. — Acta Zool. Fenn. 174: 121-122.

  • PatrisB.BaudoinC. (1998). Female sexual preferences differ in Mus specilegus and Mus musculus domesticus: the role of familiarization and sexual experience. — Anim. Behav. 56: 1465-1470.

  • PatrisB.BaudoinC. (2000). A comparative study of parental care between two rodent species: implications for the mating system of the mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus. — Behav. Proc. 51: 35-43.

  • PellisS.M.IwaniukA.N. (1999). The roles of phylogeny and sociality in the evolution of social play in muroid rodents. — Anim. Behav. 58: 361-373.

  • PollardK.A.BlumsteinD.T. (2008). Time allocation and the evolution of group size. — Anim. Behav. 76: 1683-1699.

  • PopovS.V.TchabovskyA.V.ShilovaS.A.ShchipanovN.A. (1989). [ Mechanisms of formation of the spatial-and-ethological population structure in the midday gerbil under normal conditions and after artificial suppression of population density.]. — In: [ Fauna and ecology of rodentsVol. 17]. NaukaMoscow p.  5-57.

  • PotapovM.A.ZadubrovskayaI.V.ZadubrovskyP.A.EvsikovV.I. (2012). [ Mating systems in the steppe lemming (Lagurus lagurus) and the narrow-skulled vole (Microtus gregalis) of Northern Kulunda.]. — Ekologia 1: 43-47. (In Russian).

  • PredavecM.KrebsC.J. (2000). Microhabitat utilization, home ranges, and movement patterns of the collared lemming (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus) in the central Canadian Arctic. — Can. J. Zool. 78: 1885-1890.

  • RandolphS.E. (1977). Changing spatial relationships in a population of Apodemus sylvaticus with the onset of breeding. — J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 653-676.

  • RathbunG.B.RathbunC.D. (2006). Social monogamy in the noki or dassie-rat (Petromus typicus) in Namibia. — Mammal. Biol. (Z. Saugetierk.) 71: 203-213.

  • RayorL.S.ArmitageK.B. (1991). Social behavior and space-use of young of ground-dwelling squirrel species with different levels of sociality. — Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 3: 185-205.

  • RibbleD.O.SalvioniM. (1990). Social organization and nest co-occupancy in Peromyscus californicus, a monogamous rodent. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26: 9-15.

  • RobertsR.L.WilliamsJ.R.WangA.K.CarterC.S. (1998a). Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: influence of the sire and geographic variation. — Anim. Behav. 55: 1131-1140.

  • RobertsR.L.MillerA.K.TaymansS.E.CarterC.S. (1998b). Role of social and endocrine factors in alloparental behaviour of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). — Can. J. Zool. 76: 1862-1869.

  • RodgersA.R.LewisM.C. (1986). Diet selection in Arctic lemmings (Lemmus sibiricus and Dicrostonyx groenlandicus): demography, home range, and habitat use. — Can. J. Zool. 64: 2717-2727.

  • RogovinK.A.MoshkinM.P.RandallJ.A. (2003). [ Availability of resources, demography and physiological stress in population of great gerbil (Rhombomys opimus Licht) in conditions of peak and decline density.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 82: 497-507. (In Russian with English summary).

  • RomeyW.L. (1997). Inside or outside? Testing evolutionary predictions of positional effects. — In: Animal groups in three dimentions ( ParrishJ.K.HamnerW.M. eds). Cambridge University PressCambridge p.  174-193.

  • ShchipanovN.A.GromovV.S.ShekarovaO.N. (1992). [ Some features of the spatial-and-ethological population structure of Maxomys surifer (Miler 1990).]. — In: [ Tropical Center — 91. Part 1.]. Moscow–Hoshimin–NyachangHanoi p.  48-53. (In Russian).

  • ShekarovaO.N.LiT.W.K.FanW.T.GromovV.S. (1995). [ Some features of the seasonal dynamics of the population structure of the red spiny rat (Maxomys surifer).]. — In: [ Population ecology: the structure and dynamics. Part 1.]. Moscow p.  483-490. (In Russian).

  • ShevchenkoV.L. (1962). [ Basic features of ecology of the steppe lemming (Lagurus lagurus Pall.) in northern Kazakhstan.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 41(4): 616-625. (In Russian with English summary).

  • ShilovI.A. (1991). [ The principles of intrapopulational organization and a biological role of the spatial-and-ethological population structure.]. — In: [ The population structure in mammals.]. Nauka Publ.Moscow p.  5-20. (In Russian).

  • ShiltonC.M.BrooksR.J. (1989). Paternal care in captive collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx richardsoni) and its effect on development of the offspring. — Can. J. Zool. 67: 2740-2744.

  • SlobodchifoffC.N. (1984). Resources and the evolution of social behavior. — In: A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems ( PriceP.W.SlobodchikoffC.N.GaudW.S. eds). WileyNew York, NY p.  227-251.

  • SlobodchikoffC.N.ShieldsW.M. (1988). Ecological trade-offs and social behavior. — In: The ecology of social behavior ( SlobodchikoffC.N. ed.). Academic PressSan Diego, CA p.  3-10.

  • SludskyA.A. (1948). [ The muskrat and its acclimatization in Kazakhstan.]. — Academy of Sciences KazSSRAlma-Ata. (In Russian).

  • SmirinYu.M. (1977). [ Stability of social units in the wood mouse.]. — Bulletin Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody 82: 5-11. (In Russian).

  • SmirinYu.M.ShilovaS.A. (1989). [ Some features of social behavior of the house mouse (Mus musculus) and wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) under conditions of cohabitation.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 68: 99-110. (In Russian with English summary).

  • SmorkatchevaA.V. (1999). The social organization of the mandarin vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus, during the reproductive period. — Z. Säugetierk. 64: 344-355.

  • SmorkatchevaA.V. (2003). Parental care in the captive mandarin vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus. — Can. J. Zool. 8: 1-7.

  • SmorkatchevaA.V.AksenovaT.G.ZorenkoT.A. (1990). [ Ecology of the mandarin vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) in Transbaikal region.]. — Zool. Zhurnal 69: 115-124. (In Russian with English summary).

  • SokolovV.E.KotenkovaE.V.LyalyukhinaS.I. (1990). Biology of the house mouse and the mound-building mouse. — NaukaMoscow. (In Russian).

  • SokolovV.E.ShilovaS.A.GromovV.S.ShekarovaO.N.ShchipanovN.A. (1993). Some features of the ecology and behavior of red spiny rats Maxomys surifer Miller, 1990. — Russ. J. Ecol. 24: 245-251.

  • SolomonN.G. (1991). Current indirect fitness benefits associated with philopatry in juvenile prairie voles. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 277-282.

  • SolomonN.G. (1993). Comparison of parental behaviour in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogacter). — Can. J. Zool. 71: 434-437.

  • SolomonN.G.KeaneB. (2007). Reproductive strategies in female rodents. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective ( WolffJ.O.ShermanP.W. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  42-56.

  • SpinksA.C.BennettN.C.JarvisJ.U.M. (1999). Regulation of reproduction in female common mole-rats, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus: the effects of breeding season and reproductive status. — J. Zool. 248: 161-168.

  • StrautmanE.I. (1963). [ The muskrat in Kazakhstan.]. — Academy of Sciences KazSSRAlma-Ata. (In Russian).

  • SurovA.V.TelitsynaA.Yu.Wynne-EdwardsK.E. (1995). [ Ethological aspects of the use of the environmental resources by the Djungarian hamster (Phodopus campbelli).]. — In: [ The Ubsu-Noor experiment. Part 1.]. IntellectMoscow p.  265-277. (In Russian).

  • TaberA.B.MacdonaldD.W. (1992). Communal breeding in the mara, Dolichotis patagonum (Rodentia: Caviomorpha). — J. Zool. Lond. 227: 439-452.

  • TchabovskyA.V.LapinV.F.PopovC.V. (1990). [ The seasonal dynamics of social organization in the Libyan gerbil (Meriones libycus).]. — Zool. Zhurnal 69: 111-125. (In Russian with English summary).

  • TermanC.R. (1961). Some dynamics of spatial distribution within semi-natural populations of prairie deer mice. — Ecology 42: 288-302.

  • TermanC.R. (1962). Spatial and homing consequences of the introduction of aliens into semi-natural populations of prairie deer mice. — Ecology 43: 216-223.

  • ThomasJ.A.BirneyE.C. (1979). Parental care and mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5: 171-186.

  • TravisS.E.SlobodchikoffC.N. (1993). Effects of food resource distribution on the social system of Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). — Can. J. Zool. 71: 1186-1192.

  • TurnerB.N.IversonS.L. (1973). The annual cycle of aggression in male Microtus pennsylvanicus, and its relation to population parameters. — Ecology 54: 967-981.

  • Vasil’evaN.Yu.SurovA.V. (1984). [ The spatial population structure and behavior of the gray hamster in the Zaaltai Gobi (Mongolia).]. — In: [ Signaling and ecology in mammals and birds.]. NaukaMoscow p.  113-120. (In Russian).

  • ViitalaJ. (1977). Social organization in cyclic subarctic populations of the voles Clethrionomys rufocanus (Sund.) and Microtus agrestis (L.). — Ann. Zool. Fenn. 14: 53-93.

  • ViitalaJ. (1994). Monogamy in free living Microtus oeconomus. — Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 343-345.

  • VincentJ.P.QuéréJ.P. (1972). Etude d’une population de rats mucques (Ondatra zibethica) par marquage et recapture. — Mammalia 36: 8-21.

  • WanX.WangM.WangG.LiuW.ZhongW. (2002). The adaptive pattern in social behaviour between adult and sub-adult Brandt’s voles (Microtus brandti) to photoperiod. — Acta Theriol. Sin. 22: 116-122.

  • WangZ.X.InselT.R. (1996). Parental behavior in voles. — Adv. Stud. Behav. 25: 361-384.

  • WangZ.X.LiuY.YoungL.J.InselT.R. (2000). Hypothalamic vasopressin gene expression increases in both males and females postpartum in a biparental rodent. — J. Neuroendocrinol. 12: 111-120.

  • WestS.D. (1977). Mid-winter aggregation in the northern red-backed vole, Clethrionomys rufocanus. — Can. J. Zool. 55: 1404-1409.

  • Wheeler-MakinJ.PorterR.H. (1984). Paternal behavior in the spiny mouse (Acomys cahirinus). — Behav. Neural Biol. 41: 135-151.

  • WilsonD.E.ReederD.M. (1993). Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference2nd edn.Smithsonian Institution PressWashington, DC.

  • WilsonD.S. (1975). A theory of group selection. — Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 72: 143-146.

  • WilsonE.O. (1975). Sociobiology: the new synthesis. — BelknapCambridge, MA.

  • WolffJ.O.LidickerW.Z.Jr. (1981). Communal winter nesting and food sharing in taiga voles. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 237-240.

  • WoltonR.J. (1985). The ranging and nesting behaviour of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia: Muridae), as revealed by radio-tracking. — J. Zool. Lond. (A) 206: 203-224.

  • Wynne-EdwardsK.E. (1995). Biparental care in Djungarian but not Siberian dwarf hamsters (Phodopus). — Anim. Behav. 50: 1571-1585.

  • XiaX.MillarJ.S. (1988). Paternal behavior by Peromyscus leucopus in enclosures. — Can. J. Zool. 66: 1184-1187.

  • YlönenH.ViitalaJ. (1985). Social organization of an enclosed winter population of the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus. — Ann. Zool. Fenn. 22: 353-358.

  • ZhangJ.ZhongW. (1981). On the colonial structure of Brandt’s vole in burrow units. — Acta Theriol. Sin. 1: 51-56.

  • ZöphelU. (1991). Social organization of the vole Microtus brandti inhabiting steppes of Central Asia. — In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Mammology Finland May 29–June 2 1999 p. 242.

  • ZorenkoT.A. (1979). [ Population structure in the common vole Microtus arvalis Pall.]. — In: [ Population dynamics and behavior of vertebrates in the Latvian SSR.]. NaukaRiga p.  79-101. (In Russian).

  • ZorenkoT.A. (1994). [ The sex-age population structure and its variation. Ethology.]. — In: [ The common vole: sibling species Microtus arvalis Pallas 1779 and M. rossiaemeridionalis Ognev 1924.]. NaukaMoscow p.  289-297. (In Russian).

Figures

  • View in gallery

    The results of principal components analysis with the distribution of 26 rodent species within the plane of two principal factors.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 61 61 8
Full Text Views 140 140 26
PDF Downloads 7 7 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0