A Comparative Behavioral Study of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus

Fitch, John H.

doi:10.2307/3626851

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In my study sites, P. leucopus is a microhabitat specialist, concentrating its activities in the most structurally diverse areas. It may be able to appropriate these microhabitat patches from resident P. maniculatus because of its larger body size (Jackson 1961;Stromberg 1979a) and dominant and aggressive behavior (Fitch 1963;Kantak 1983). This is supported by field experiments in which the persistence of P. maniculatus populations was negatively correlated with the density of P. leucopus, and removal of one species was followed by an increase in the other (Master 1977).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Microhabitats of two Peromyscus (Deer and Whitefooted mice) species in old fields and prairies of Wisconsin

Kantak

1996

The Canadian Field-Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kantak, Gail E. 1996. Microhabitats of two Peromyscus (Deer and White-footed mice) species in old fields and prairies Ov Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110(2): 322-325. Peromyscus spp. were live-trapped in old fields and prairie remnants of southern Wisconsin. Microhabitat data were al lected at each capture site and at random sites. The Prairie Deer Mouse, P. maniculatus bairdi, was the more abundan' species, but the Northern White-footed Mouse, P. leucopus noveboracensis, also maintained resident, though smaller, pop: ulations in these open field habitats. Compared to random trap stations, trap stations capturing Peromyscus spp. had more bare substrate, less dead vegetation, taller vegetation, lower forb diversity, and were closer to cultivated fields. Comparec, to P. maniculatus, P. leucopus selected microhabitats which had more small-scale three-dimensional structure and whict | were closer to isolated trees.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Microhabitats of two Peromyscus (Deer and Whitefooted mice) species in old fields and prairies of Wisconsin

Kantak

1996

The Canadian Field-Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Competitive ability, body size and geographical range size in small mammals

Glazier

Eckert

2002

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Why are some species widespread and abundant while others are restricted and rare? Darwin (1859) and others have claimed that some species have become widespread because they are competitively dominant over related, geographically restricted species. An alternative hypothesis is that wide-ranging species are ecological generalists that have been able to opportunistically colonize many kinds of new, disturbed and/or marginal habitats, whereas related narrow-ranging species are ecological specialists that competitively dominate speci®c kinds of relatively stable habitats/resources. We tested these opposing hypotheses using small mammals, for which considerable data on competitive interactions and geographical range sizes are available.Location North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.Methods We analysed data for forty-three competitive interactions between congeneric species in twenty genera, seven families, and four orders of small mammals. Competitive dominance was identi®ed from both ®eld and laboratory experiments, which were lumped because they showed similar results. ResultsWe found that (1) when all studies were analysed as individual data points, species with smaller geographical ranges tended to be dominant over congeneric species with larger geographical ranges, (2) lumping of interaction pairs sharing one or more of the same species yielded a similar result, (3) lumping all interactions involving the same genus also showed the same result, although it was not statistically signi®cant, probably because of the small sample size resulting from this attempt to remove phylogenetic effects. Examination of the taxonomic relationships of the studied genera revealed no obvious phylogenetic effects on the relationship of competitive dominance with geographical range size. Furthermore, although body-size differences appeared to have played a role in the results observed, they cannot completely explain them.Main conclusions We tentatively conclude that Darwin's hypothesis is falsi®ed for small mammals, while the alternative hypothesis that geographically restricted species are competitively dominant over related widespread species receives some support.

show abstract

Behavioral, Seed Preference and Habitat Selection Experiments with Two Sympatric Peromyscus Species

Kantak¹

1983

American Midland Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Comparative Behavioral Study of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Microhabitats of two Peromyscus (Deer and Whitefooted mice) species in old fields and prairies of Wisconsin

Microhabitats of two Peromyscus (Deer and Whitefooted mice) species in old fields and prairies of Wisconsin

Competitive ability, body size and geographical range size in small mammals

Behavioral, Seed Preference and Habitat Selection Experiments with Two Sympatric Peromyscus Species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About