Laboratorizing the wild rat (Rattus norvégiens)

Boice, Robert

doi:10.3758/bf03208127

Cited by 32 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps including freshly captured rats which have faced natural threats, including potentially poisonous food, would provide greater variety in the analyzed behavior (Barnett, 2005;Boice, 1971). This modification, however, would introduce high levels of variability in the experiences among the rats, adding multiple variables which would be impossible to measure and which could potentially affect the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rat species not subjected to population suppression through the use of rat poison due to their human-independent diet do not demonstrate neophobic responses to novel foods (Barnett, 1956(Barnett, , 2005Cowan, 1977;Inglis et al, 1996). Furthermore, food neophobia seems to be absent in Norway rats inhabiting landfills, given their constantly changing environment and the ubiquity of novelty (Barnett, 1963(Barnett, , 2009Boice, 1971). Absence of food neophobia has also been reported in a group of Rattus norvegicus which lived for over a century on an island isolated from human activity (Taylor and Thomas, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food neophobia in wild and laboratory rats (multi-strain comparison)

Modlińska

Stryjek

Pisula

2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although empirical studies comparing neophobia in wild and laboratory rats have been conducted in the past, a few decades have passed since most of them were completed. This is a substantial period of time in the case of fast-breeding animals such as rats. Equally important are the inconsistencies in research findings with respect to comparisons between wild and laboratory rats, and within domesticated strains. As well as having the aim of updating knowledge of neophobia among different types of rats, the present experiment was also an attempt to isolate a specific fear of a new food from a general fear of a novel object. The procedure was that rats accustomed to one type of food served in a specific location and in a familiar container were given a different type of food. Test trials were preceded by food deprivation. The following variables were measured: feeding latency, the pace of eating, the number of approaches to the container, and the number of times food was sampled in each trial. The amount of food consumed in each trial was weighed and also taken into account. Grooming time served as the measure of stress among the rats in the experiment. The results of the experiment did not confirm the assertion of some authors that wild rats avoid eating unfamiliar foods. All groups demonstrated only a temporary decrease in the amount of food consumed, the magnitude of which was similar in all strains. No evidence of particularly low neophobia in albino rats was found. However, the behavioral symptoms indicated higher levels of stress in wild rats compared to the other groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Food neophobia in wild and laboratory rats (multi-strain comparison)

Modlińska

Stryjek

Pisula

2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baited live traps (see Boice, 1971) were placed outside the pen to determine if the pen was escapeproof and if the soil was suitable for burrowing. The effectiveness of the electric fence was also checked at this time.…”

Section: Methods Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Outdoor enclosures for feralizing rats and mice

Boice

Adams

1980

Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationales for the naturalistic study of rattus and mus in outdoor enclosures are well known but rarely transformed into practice. This paper describes the materials, construction details, and operational procedures for rat and mouse pens that are easily and inexpensively built and maintained. The suggestion here is that outdoor enclosures offer meaningful views of rodent behavior not accessible in traditional laboratory situations.Why is it that the universally accepted calls for the more naturalistic study of laboratory rodents (Lockard, 1971) have produced so few changes in practice? Part of the problem is a matter of clear precedents. Methods for setting up colonies of rats (Rattus norvegicus) or mice (Mus musculus) outside the laboratory are not immediately obvious. 'This paper demonstrates the ease, practicality, and benefits of establishing outdoor enclosures.The reference literature on establishing feral colonies is scant. Early attempts at feralizing rodents were apparently unsuccessful (e.g., Donaldson, 1924), and the resulting impression was that laboratory rodents could not survive the rigors of outdoor living. Recent studies, however, indicate that laboratory varieties of rats and mice placed outdoors dig burrows and tolerate wide extremes of climate in good health (Adams & Boice, in press;Boice, 1977).The best known study of wild rodents in a large enclosure is Calhoun's (1962) monograph on the social behavior of Norway rats. Lesser known but richly descriptive articles by Steiniger (1950) and Tel1e (1966) are also important in preparing researchers for the wealth of behaviors to be seen in noncaptive rodents. Most of the remaining literature is simply demographic. Davis (1953) and his colleagues (e.g., Davis, Emlen, & Stokes, 1948) provide information on the home range, reproduction rates, and the effects of manipulating amounts of haborage for Norway rats. Much the same is true for most naturalistic reports of Mus. There is evidence, however, that wild house mice, on occasion, aggregate into high densities

show abstract

“…Scientific investigation with the albino rat often receives criticism about the perceived artificiality of the domestic rodent (Boice, 1971, 1981). Consistent with this doubt is the assumption that the albino rat is degenerate and dull compared with wild rats (Robinson, 1965).…”

Section: Ratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Models for Investigating the Central Control of the Mammalian Diving Response

McCulloch

2012

Front. Physio.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pioneering studies by Per Scholander indicated that the diving response consists of reflexly induced apnea, bradycardia and an alteration of blood flow that maintains perfusion of the heart and brain. More recently field physiological studies have shown that many marine animals can adjust cardiorespiratory aspects of their diving response depending upon the behavioral situation. This could suggest that the very labile heart rate during diving is under direct cortical control. However, the final control of autonomic nervous system functioning resides within the brainstem and not the cortex. Many physiologists regard the brain as a “black box” where important neuronal functioning occurs, but the complexity of such functioning leaves systematic investigation a daunting task. As a consequence the central control of the diving response has been under-investigated. Thus, to further advance the field of diving physiology by understanding its central neuronal control, it would be first necessary to understand the reflex circuitry that exists within the brainstem of diving animals. To do this will require an appropriate animal model. In this review, two animals, the muskrat and rat, will be offered as animal models to investigate the central aspects of the diving response. Firstly, although these rodents are not marine animals, natural histories indicate that both animals can and do exploit aquatic environments. Secondly, physiological recordings during natural and simulated diving indicate that both animals possess the same basic physiological responses to underwater submersion that occur in marine animals. Thirdly, the size and ease of housing of both animals makes them attractive laboratory research animals. Finally, the enormous amount of scientific literature regarding rodent brainstem autonomic control mechanisms, and the availability of brain atlases, makes these animals ideal choices to study the central control of the mammalian diving response.

show abstract

Laboratorizing the wild rat (Rattus norvégiens)

Cited by 32 publications

References 27 publications

Food neophobia in wild and laboratory rats (multi-strain comparison)

Food neophobia in wild and laboratory rats (multi-strain comparison)

Outdoor enclosures for feralizing rats and mice

Animal Models for Investigating the Central Control of the Mammalian Diving Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About