Differences in the decision to attack between grasshopper mice and hamsters: Effects of novel, noxious, and aversive stimuli

Langley, William M.

doi:10.3758/bf03330145

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, experimental studies have shown that O. leucogaster has significantly higher success rates during insect predation than other rodents. This high success rate is thought to involve faster motor responses, the use of the hands during prey capture, more canalized decision-making processes, and increased use of the special senses for predator detection and capture (Langley, 1983(Langley, , 1984(Langley, , 1986(Langley, , 1987(Langley, , 1994.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gape and bite force in the rodents Onychomys leucogaster and Peromyscus maniculatus: Does jaw‐muscle anatomy predict performance?

Williams

Peiffer

Ford

2009

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with the deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus, the grasshopper mouse, Onychomys leucogaster, exhibits modifications in its jaw-muscle architecture that promote wide gapes and large bite forces at wide gapes to prey upon large vertebrate prey. In this study, we determine whether jaw-muscle anatomy predicts gape and biting performance in O. leucogaster, and we also assess the influence of gape on bite force in the two species. Although O. leucogaster has an absolutely longer jaw, which facilitates larger gapes, maximum passive gape is similar in both species, averaging approximately 12.5 mm. Thus, when scaled to jaw length, O. leucogaster has a smaller maximum passive gape. These results suggest that predatory behaviors of O. leucogaster may not require remarkably large gapes. On the other hand, both absolute and relative bite forces exerted by O. leucogaster are significantly larger than those of P. maniculatus. The largest bite forces in both species occur at 5.0 mm of gape at the incisors, or 40% of maximum gape. Although bite force in both species decreases at larger gapes, O. leucogaster does maintain a larger percentage of maximum bite force at gapes larger than 40% of maximum passive gape. Therefore, although structural modifications in the masticatory apparatus of O. leucogaster may constrain gape, they may help to maintain bite force at large gapes. These results suggest that increases in gape differentially influence the length-tension properties of the jaw muscles in the two species. Finally, these results highlight the importance of considering the effect of muscle stretch on force production in comparative studies of bite force. As a first approximation, it appears that gapes of 40-50% of maximum gape in rodents optimizes bite force production at the incisors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gape and bite force in the rodents Onychomys leucogaster and Peromyscus maniculatus: Does jaw‐muscle anatomy predict performance?

Williams

Peiffer

Ford

2009

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In golden hamsters, a different kind of relationship may exist between predatory attack and feeding [Langley, 19871. The consequences of feeding and hunger affect the decision to attack more readily in golden hamsters than grasshopper mice [Langley, 1986b;Polsky, 19751. The extent that the relationship described here exists in other rodents or predatory mammals warrants further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between attack and feeding in the insect predatory behavior of grasshopper mice

Langley¹

1991

Aggr. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In grasshopper mice, the consequences of feeding and state of hunger affect the predatory attack to a limited extent. The purpose of this study was: (1) to establish other ways that attack and feeding were connected besides the two effects already mentioned; and (2) to determine if caching of dead prey could account for the limited connection between attack and feeding. Experiment 1 showed that attack and feeding were connected as part of a reaction chain. Experiment 2 showed that both shared a common maturational process despite the fact that each response achieved an improved efficiency in a different way. Experiment 3 showed that caching prey was not correlated with the killing of a prey and thus could not account for the limited connection between attack and feeding. It is proposed that a highly canalized attack response specifically buffered against the effects of feeding and hunger plays an important role in the mouse's carnivorous life style.

show abstract

“…For 7 consecutive days a mouse was placed in a terrarium for 1 hr and presented a live prey as follows (Langley, 1986b). For the first 3 days, each mouse received an unaltered house cricket once a day with 10 min to attack.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only the consumption of dead prey or testing in the familiar home cage resulted in attacks by many of these animals. Novelty of an area or prior consumption of dead prey do not alter the grasshopper mouse's attack threshold (Kemble, 1984; Langley 1986b). Presumably, fear associated with novelty raises the attack threshold in deer mice more readily than in grasshopper mice.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Toxicosis produced the most dramatic differences between the predatory attacks of hamsters and grasshopper mice when the prey was coated with an almond extract and the rodents had eaten such prey before experiencing the poison. In that situation almost all the hamsters still did not attack, but grasshopper mice did (Langley, 1986b). This experiment examined if a similar difference existed between the attack responses of deer and grasshopper mice.…”

Section: Experiments 3: Effect Of Toxicosismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of predatory behaviors of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster).

Langley¹

1994

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological Methods will be devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and statistical analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is diverse and includes those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research. The journal solicits original theoretical, quantitative empirical, and methodological articles; reviews of important methodological issues; tutorials; articles illustrating innovative applications of new procedures to psychological problems; articles on the teaching of quantitative methods; and reviews of statistical software. Submissions should illustrate through concrete example how the procedures described or developed can enhance the quality of psychological research. The journal welcomes submissions that show the relevance to psychology of procedures developed in other fields. Empirical and theoretical articles on specific tests or test construction should have a broad thrust; otherwise, they may be more appropriate for Psychological Assessment.

show abstract

Differences in the decision to attack between grasshopper mice and hamsters: Effects of novel, noxious, and aversive stimuli

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

Gape and bite force in the rodents Onychomys leucogaster and Peromyscus maniculatus: Does jaw‐muscle anatomy predict performance?

Gape and bite force in the rodents Onychomys leucogaster and Peromyscus maniculatus: Does jaw‐muscle anatomy predict performance?

Relationship between attack and feeding in the insect predatory behavior of grasshopper mice

Comparison of predatory behaviors of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About