Meadow voles differentiate between scents of different sources
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Sarah S. Garris in
Current site
Google Scholar
Department of Biology, Christian Brothers University, Cooper-Wilson Center, Memphis, TN 38104, USA
Search for other papers by Lyndsey M. Pierson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Michael H. Ferkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Scent marks are an important means of transmitting information between rodents, and they can be produced from several body sources. Previous studies have shown that scents from multiple sources can convey the same information; female meadow voles, for example, have three scent sources that communicate sex. However, possessing three separate sources that convey the same information is likely costly due to the metabolic energy required to produce these signals and the increased chance that eavesdropping individuals may intercept information present in these signals. In this study, we investigated if these scent sources could communicate other information, in addition to scent donor sex, by determining if male meadow voles could distinguish scent marks taken from different sources of a single female scent donor. This was accomplished with a habituation-test method, that allowed us to compare how male meadow voles differently investigate scent from a familiar and novel source of a female scent donor. Male meadow voles could distinguish between faeces and urine scent marks of a female, but could only distinguish mouth from urine and faeces scent marks when first familiarized with mouth scent marks. Our findings suggest that mouth, urine, and faeces scent marks of female meadow voles produce both redundant and distinct information. The overlap in information between scent marks produced from separate sources may be needed to provide social context, which allows receiving individuals to accurately weigh the tradeoffs associated with responding to an olfactory cue. While this overlap in information remains costly, this cost may be minimized by the different fade-out times of scent marks from distinct body sources, which may limit the amount of time information in a scent mark is available to a time period where this information is socially relevant.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Apfelbach, R., Parsons, M.H., Soini, H.A. & Novotny, M.V. (2015). Are single odorous components of a predator sufficient to elicit defensive behaviors in prey species? — Front. Neurosci. 9: 263.
-
Banks, P., Nelika, K., Hughes, A. & Rose, T. (2002). Do native Australian small mammals avoid faeces of domestic dogs? Responses of Rattus fuscipes and Antechinus stuartii. — Aust. Zool. 32: 406-409.
-
Barrette, C. & Messier, F. (1980). Scent-marking in free-ranging coyotes, Canis latrans. — Anim. Behav. 28: 814-819.
-
Beauchamp, G.K., Doty, R.L., Moulton, D.G. & Mugford, R.A. (1976). The pheromone concept in mammalian chemical communication: a critique. — In: Mammalian olfaction reproductive processes and behavior (Doty, R.L., ed.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 143-160.
-
Been, L.E., Bauman, J.M., Petrulis, A. & Chang, Y.H. (2012). X-ray kinematics analysis of vaginal scent marking in female Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). — Physiol. Behav. 105: 1021-1027.
-
Brinck, C., Erlinge, S. & Sandell, M. (1983). Anal sac secretion in mustelids a comparison. — J. Chem. Ecol. 9: 727-745.
-
Burgener, N., Dehnhard, M., Hofer, H. & East, M.L. (2009). Does anal gland scent signal identity in the spotted hyaena? — Anim. Behav. 77: 707-715.
-
Bytheway, J.P., Carthey, A.J. & Banks, P.B. (2013). Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67: 715-725.
-
Clark, K.E., Messler, K.A. & Ferkin, M.H. (2020). Sex differences in olfactory social recognition memory in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Ethology 126: 993-1003.
-
De Boer, J.N. (1977). The age of olfactory cues functioning in chemocommunication among male domestic cats. — Behav. Process. 2: 209-225.
-
delBarco-Trillo, J. & Ferkin, M.H. (2004). Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. — Nature 431: 446-449.
-
delBarco-Trillo, J. & Ferkin, M.H. (2006). Male meadow voles respond differently to risk and intensity of sperm competition. — Behav. Ecol. 17: 581-585.
-
Dielenberg, R.A. & McGregor, I.S. (2001). Defensive behavior in rats towards predatory odors: a review. — Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 25: 597-609.
-
Drapier, M., Chauvin, C. & Thierry, B. (2002). Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) find food sources from cues conveyed by group-mates. — Anim. Cogn. 5: 159-165.
-
Erlinge, S., Sandell, M. & Brinck, C. (1982). Scent-marking and its territorial significance in stoats, Mustela erminea. — Anim. Behav. 30: 811-818.
-
Fanjul, M.S., Zenuto, R.R. & Busch, C. (2003). Use of olfaction for sexual recognition in the subterranean rodent, Ctenomys talarum. — Acta Theriol. 48: 35-46.
-
Ferkin, M.H. (1999). Attractiveness of opposite-sex odor and responses to it vary with age and sex in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). — J. Chem. Ecol. 25: 757-769.
-
Ferkin, M.H. (2007). Effects of previous interactions and sex on over-marking in meadow voles. — Behaviour 144: 1297-1313.
-
Ferkin, M.H. (2015). The response of rodents to scent marks: four broad hypotheses. — Horm. Behav. 68: 43-52.
-
Ferkin, M.H. (2019a). Perspectives on chemical signals conveying information in rodents. — In: Chemical signals in vertebrates (Buesching, C.D., ed.). Springer Nature, Cham, p. 3-12.
-
Ferkin, M.H. (2019b). Scent marks of rodents can provide information to conspecifics. — Anim. Cogn. 22: 445-452.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Johnston, R.E. (1993). Roles of gonadal hormones in control of five sexually attractive odors of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). — Horm. Behav. 27: 523-538.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Johnston, R.E. (1995a). Effects of pregnancy, lactation and postpartum oestrus on odour signals and the attraction to odours in female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Anim. Behav. 49: 1211-1217.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Johnston, R.E. (1995b). Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, use multiple sources of scent for sex recognition. — Anim. Behav. 49: 37-44.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Pierce, A.A. (2007). Perspectives on over-marking: is it good to be on top? — J. Ethol. 25: 107-116.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Seamon, J.O. (1987). Odor preference and social behavior in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus: seasonal differences. — Can. J. Zool. 65: 2931-2937.
-
Ferkin, M.H. & Zucker, I. (1991). Seasonal control of odour preferences of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) by photoperiod and ovarian hormones. — Reproduction 92: 433-441.
-
Ferkin, M.H., Ferkin, F.H. & Richmond, M. (1994). Sources of scent used by prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, to convey sexual identity to conspecifics. — Can. J. Zool. 72: 2205-2209.
-
Ferkin, M.H., Burda, J., O’Connor, M.P. & Lee, C.J. (1995). Persistence of the attractiveness of two sex-specific scents in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Ethology 101: 228-238.
-
Ferkin, M.H., Sorokin, E.S., Johnston, R.E. & Lee, C.J. (1997). Attractiveness of scents varies with protein content of the diet in meadow voles. — Anim. Behav. 53: 133-141.
-
Ferkin, M.H., Dunsavage, J. & Johnston, R.E. (1999). What kind of information do meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) use to distinguish between the top and bottom scent of an over-mark? — J. Comp. Psychol. 113: 43-51.
-
Ferkin, M.H., Li, H.Z. & Leonard, S.T. (2004). Meadow voles and prairie voles differ in the percentage of conspecific marks they over-mark. — Acta Ethol. 7: 1-7.
-
Fuentes, M., Tecles, F., Gutiérrez, A., Otal, J., Martínez-Subiela, S. & Cerón, J.J. (2011). Validation of an automated method for salivary alpha-amylase measurements in pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) and its application as a stress biomarker. — J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 23: 282-287.
-
Galef Jr, B.G., Lim, T.C. & Gilbert, G.S. (2008). Evidence of mate choice copying in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus. — Anim. Behav. 75: 1117-1123.
-
Gomes, L.A.P., Salgado, P.M.P., Barata, E.N. & Mira, A.P.P. (2013). Alarm scent-marking during predatory attempts in the Cabrera vole (Microtus cabrerae Thomas, 1906). — Ecol. Res. 28: 335-343.
-
Gorman, M.R., Ferkin, M.H., Nelson, R.J. & Zucker, I. (1993). Reproductive status influences odor preferences of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, in winter day lengths. — Can. J. Zool. 71: 1748-1754.
-
Gosling, L.M. (1982). A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. — Z. Tierpsychol. 60: 89-118.
-
Gosling, L.M. & Roberts, S.C. (2001). Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. — Adv. Study Behav. 30: 169-217.
-
Hayes, R.A., Morelli, T.L. & Wright, P.C. (2004). Anogenital gland secretions of Lemur catta and Propithecus verreauxi coquereli: a preliminary chemical examination. — Am. J. Primatol. 63: 49-62.
-
Hepper, P.G. (1987). The discrimination of different degrees of relatedness in the rat: evidence for a genetic identifier? — Anim. Behav. 35: 549-554.
-
Hughes, N.K., Korpimäki, E. & Banks, P.B. (2010). The predation risks of interspecific eavesdropping: weasel–vole interactions. — Oikos 119: 1210-1216.
-
Johnston, R.E. (1977). The causation of two scent-marking behaviour patterns in female hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). — Anim. Behav. 25: 317-327.
-
Johnston, R.E. (1993). Memory for individual scent in hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) as assessed by habituation methods. — J. Comp. Psychol. 107: 201-207.
-
Johnston, R.E. (2003). Chemical communication in rodents: from pheromones to individual recognition. — J. Mammal. 84: 1141-1162.
-
Johnston, R.E. & Bullock, T.A. (2001). Individual recognition by use of odours in golden hamsters: the nature of individual representations. — Anim. Behav. 61: 545-557.
-
Johnston, R.E. & Schmidt, T. (1979). Responses of hamsters to scent marks of different ages. — Behav. Neural Biol. 26: 64-75.
-
Johnston, R.E., Derzie, A., Chiang, G., Jernigan, P. & Lee, H.C. (1993). Individual scent signatures in golden hamsters: evidence for specialization of function. — Anim. Behav. 45: 1061-1070.
-
Johnston, R.E., Sorokin, E.S. & Ferkin, M.H. (1997). Female voles discriminate males’ over-marks and prefer top-scent males. — Anim. Behav. 54: 679-690.
-
Jordan, N.R., Manser, M.B., Mwanguhya, F., Kyabulima, S., Rüedi, P. & Cant, M.A. (2011). Scent marking in wild banded mongooses: 1. Sex-specific scents and overmarking. — Anim. Behav. 81: 31-42.
-
Kiyokawa, Y., Kikusui, T., Takeuchi, Y. & Mori, Y. (2004). Alarm pheromones with different functions are released from different regions of the body surface of male rats. — Chem. Senses 29: 35-40.
-
Kohli, K.L. & Ferkin, M.H. (1999). Over-marking and adjacent marking are influenced by sibship in male prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. — Ethology 105: 1-11.
-
Krause, E.T., Krüger, O., Kohlmeier, P. & Caspers, B.A. (2012). Olfactory kin recognition in a songbird. — Biol. Lett. 8: 327-329.
-
Lai, S.C. & Johnston, R.E. (1994). Individual odors in Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus campbelli). — Ethology 96: 117-126.
-
Lai, S.C., Vasilieva, N.Y. & Johnston, R.E. (1996). Odors providing sexual information in Djungarian hamsters: evidence for an across-odor code. — Horm. Behav. 30: 26-36.
-
MacDonald, D.W. (1980). Patterns of scent marking with urine and faeces amongst carnivore communities. — Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 45: 107-139.
-
Madison, D.M. & McShea, W.J. (1987). Seasonal changes in reproductive tolerance, spacing, and social organization in meadow voles: a microtine model. — Am. Zool. 27: 899-908.
-
Mateo, J.M. & Johnston, R.E. (2000). Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 267: 695-700.
-
Mihailova, M., Berg, M.L., Buchanan, K.L. & Bennett, A.T. (2018). Olfactory eavesdropping: the odor of feathers is detectable to mammalian predators and competitors. — Ethology 124: 14-24.
-
Mykytowycz, R., Hesterman, E.R., Gambale, S. & Dudziński, M.L. (1976). A comparison of the effectiveness of the odors of rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus, in enhancing territorial confidence. — J. Chem. Ecol. 2: 13-24.
-
Noto, Y., Sato, T., Kudo, M., Kurata, K. & Hirota, K. (2005). The relationship between salivary biomarkers and state-trait anxiety inventory score under mental arithmetic stress: a pilot study. — Anesth. Analg. 101: 1873-1876.
-
Petrulis, A. & Johnston, R.E. (1997). Causes of scent marking in female golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus): specific signals or classes of information? — J. Comp. Psychol. 111: 25-36.
-
Petrulis, A., Peng, M. & Johnston, R.E. (1999). Effects of vomeronasal organ removal on individual odor discrimination, sex-odor preference, and scent marking by female hamsters. — Physiol. Behav. 66: 73-83.
-
Pierce, A.A., Ferkin, M.H. & Williams, T.K. (2005). Food-deprivation-induced changes in sexual behaviour of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. — Anim. Behav. 70: 339-348.
-
Pillay, N., Lazenby, S. & Alexander, G. (2003). Responses of striped mice, Rhabdomys pumilio, to faeces of a predatory snake. — Behaviour 140: 125-135.
-
Ralls, K. (1971). Mammalian scent marking. — Science 171: 443-449.
-
Rasa, O.A.E. (1973). Marking behaviour and its social significance in the African dwarf mongoose, Helogale undulata rufula. — Z. Tierpsychol. 32: 293-318.
-
Rich, T.J. & Hurst, J.L. (1999). The competing countermarks hypothesis: reliable assessment of competitive ability by potential mates. — Anim. Behav. 58: 1027-1037.
-
Roberts, S.C. (2007). Scent marking. — In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective (Wolff, J.O. & Sherman, P.W., eds). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 255-266.
-
Rohrer, K.N. & Ferkin, M.H. (2019). Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, can discriminate between scents of individual house cats, Felis catus. — Ethology 125: 316-323.
-
Rozenfeld, F.M., Boulangé, E.L. & Rasmont, R. (1987). Urine marking by male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus Schreber, 1780; Microtidae, Rodentia) in relation to their social rank. — Can. J. Zool. 65: 2594-2601.
-
Sharpe, L.L., Jooste, M.M. & Cherry, M.I. (2012). Handstand scent marking in the dwarf mongoose (Helogale parvula). — Ethology 118: 575-583.
-
Shimozuru, M., Kikusui, T., Takeuchi, Y. & Mori, Y. (2007). Discrimination of individuals by odor in male Mongolian gerbils, Meriones unguiculatus. — Zool. Sci. 24: 427-433.
-
Sievert, T., Haapakoski, M., Palme, R., Voipio, H. & Ylönen, H. (2019). Secondhand horror: effects of direct and indirect predator cues on behavior and reproduction of the bank vole. — Ecosphere 10: se02765.
-
Swihart, R.K., Pignatello, J.J. & Mattina, M.J.I. (1991). Aversive responses of white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, to predator urines. — J. Chem. Ecol. 17: 767-777.
-
Takai, N., Yamaguchi, M., Aragaki, T., Eto, K., Uchihashi, K. & Nishikawa, Y. (2004). Effect of psychological stress on the salivary cortisol and amylase levels in healthy young adults. — Arch. Oral Biol. 49: 963-968.
-
Vaughn, A.A. & Ferkin, M.H. (2011). The presence and number of male competitor’s scent marks and female reproductive state affect the response of male meadow voles to female conspecifics’ odours. — Behaviour 148: 927-943.
-
Vaughn, A.A., delBarco-Trillo, J. & Ferkin, M.H. (2008). Sperm investment in male meadow voles is affected by the condition of the nearby male conspecifics. — Behav. Ecol. 19: 1159-1164.
-
Vlautin, C.T., Hobbs, N.J. & Ferkin, M.H. (2010). Male and female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, differ in their responses to heterospecific/conspecific over-marks. — Ethology 116: 797-805.
-
Vogt, K., Boos, S., Breitenmoser, U. & Kölliker, M. (2016). Chemical composition of Eurasian lynx urine conveys information on reproductive state, individual identity, and urine age. — Chemoecology 26: 205-217.
-
Webster, H., McNutt, J.W. & McComb, K. (2009). Eavesdropping and risk assessment between lions, spotted hyenas and African wild dogs. — Ethology 116: 233-239.
-
Weldon, P.J., Graham, D.P. & Mears, L.P. (1993). Carnivore fecal chemicals suppress feeding by Alpine goats (Capra hircus). — J. Chem. Ecol. 19: 2947-2952.
-
Wilson, EV. & Bossert, W.H. (1963). Chemical communication among animals. — Recent Prog. Horm. Res. 19: 673-716.
-
Woodward Jr, R.L., Bartos, K. & Ferkin, M.H. (2000). Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and prairie voles (M. ochrogaster) differ in their responses to over-marks from opposite-and same-sex conspecifics. — Ethology 106: 979-992.
-
Zuri, I., Nguyen, D., Daniels, Y. & Halpern, M. (2007). Skin, gland, and urine odors elicit intense investigation by male gray short-tailed opossums, Monodelphis domestica. — Can. J. Zool. 85: 450-457.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 356 | 62 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 6 | 0 |
Meadow voles differentiate between scents of different sources
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Sarah S. Garris in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biology, Christian Brothers University, Cooper-Wilson Center, Memphis, TN 38104, USA
Search for other papers by Lyndsey M. Pierson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael H. Ferkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Scent marks are an important means of transmitting information between rodents, and they can be produced from several body sources. Previous studies have shown that scents from multiple sources can convey the same information; female meadow voles, for example, have three scent sources that communicate sex. However, possessing three separate sources that convey the same information is likely costly due to the metabolic energy required to produce these signals and the increased chance that eavesdropping individuals may intercept information present in these signals. In this study, we investigated if these scent sources could communicate other information, in addition to scent donor sex, by determining if male meadow voles could distinguish scent marks taken from different sources of a single female scent donor. This was accomplished with a habituation-test method, that allowed us to compare how male meadow voles differently investigate scent from a familiar and novel source of a female scent donor. Male meadow voles could distinguish between faeces and urine scent marks of a female, but could only distinguish mouth from urine and faeces scent marks when first familiarized with mouth scent marks. Our findings suggest that mouth, urine, and faeces scent marks of female meadow voles produce both redundant and distinct information. The overlap in information between scent marks produced from separate sources may be needed to provide social context, which allows receiving individuals to accurately weigh the tradeoffs associated with responding to an olfactory cue. While this overlap in information remains costly, this cost may be minimized by the different fade-out times of scent marks from distinct body sources, which may limit the amount of time information in a scent mark is available to a time period where this information is socially relevant.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 356 | 62 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 16 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 6 | 0 |