|Appears in Collections:||Psychology Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Scent-marking by male mice under the risk of predation|
|Author(s):||Roberts, S Craig|
Gosling, L Morris
Thornton, E A
|Citation:||Roberts SC, Gosling LM, Thornton EA & McClung J (2001) Scent-marking by male mice under the risk of predation, Behavioral Ecology, 12 (6), pp. 698-705.|
|Abstract:||The use by predators of scent marks made by potential prey is a largely unexplored potential cost of olfactory signaling. Here we investigate how animals that differ in their investment in scent-marking respond to simulated predation risk, by comparing the willingness to approach and counter-mark the scent marks of a competitor in the presence or absence of predator odor. We aimed to test whether animals that invest heavily in scent-marking, and which may thus be more vulnerable to eavesdropping predators, will either (1) take greater risks to counter-mark the competitor's scent or (2) reduce or abandon scent-marking. Using outbred male laboratory mice, Mus musculus, we show that, in the absence of predators, individuals which initially scentmark at high frequency (high markers) approach the competitor's scent marks more quickly and spend more time in countermarking than those which initially invest relatively little (low markers). In a sib-sib experimental design, simulated presence of predation risk (urine of ferrets, Mustela putorius furo) caused both kinds of individual to approach the competitor's marks more slowly, but high markers approached more quickly than low markers and spent more time in the vicinity of the competitor's marks. Only high markers significantly reduced their overmarking of the competitor's scent. These results suggest (1) that there is a unique danger inherent to scent-marking at high frequencies and (2) that high-marking males were prepared to accept increased costs of intrasexual competition in order to reduce the risk of predation. Further tests using the scent of naked molerats, Heterocephalus glaber, showed that these effects were not elicited simply by an unfamiliar odor. We discuss reasons for the observed difference in response to predation risk between the groups, and the implications of these results for counter-selection on scent-marking strategies.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|2001_behav_ecol.pdf||124 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.