Social and territorial behaviour of laboratory mice (Mus musculus L.) in small complex areas

Poole, Trevor B.; Morgan, H.D.R.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(76)80056-5

Cited by 101 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When density is extremely high, however, the available space may be too small for the dominant mouse to form a defendable territory, leading to a decrease in aggression [23]. Indeed, in the studies reporting an increase of aggression with decreasing space [3,5], mice were not housed in standard laboratory cages but were observed in areas between 360 cm 2 and 1.5 m 2 /mouse (3± 200 times the sizes used in this study).…”

Section: Cage Size Effectsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Several studies have reported that crowding causes a decrease in aggression [9,18 ±20]. However, in other studies, no effect of population density on aggression [7] or indeed an increase of aggression as a result of decrease in space allowance has been reported [3,5,21]. This apparent discrepancy may be explained by a curvilinear relationship between crowding and agonistic behavior [19,22].…”

Section: Cage Size Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Loo

Mol

Koolhaas

et al. 2001

Physiology & Behavior

220

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cage Size Effectsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Cage Size Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Loo

Mol

Koolhaas

et al. 2001

Physiology & Behavior

220

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, there is a cost to social housing in aggressive animals such as male mice which fight to establish a social hierarchy (8,49,52,53). There is good evidence that the stress response produced by social stimuli is even greater than that produced by stressors such as foot-shock or food or water deprivation (34).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Fitchett

Barnard

Cassaday

2006

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies using mice have shown that scent marks are an important source of information and can cause behavioural changes in other individuals. Studies have also shown that scent marks in the environment can affect the outcome of social interactions between mice. We used conditioned place preference tests to investigate whether CD-1 male mice (Mus musculus) are reinforced by olfactory cues from the home cage. Soiled bedding from the home cage was presented in the initially less preferred chamber of the apparatus to determine whether this association would reduce the unconditioned preference for one chamber over the other. We tested the effects of social rank and housing condition by comparing the performance of dyads that were polarised into dominant and subordinate relationships, both when paired and when separated, with mice that were isolated throughout. The development of conditioned place preference (CPP) supported by home cage odours was influenced by social rank but not by housing condition. Only subordinate mice showed CPP to home cage odours, and this effect was seen irrespective of whether they were housed with a dominant cage mate or alone. Neither dominant (paired or separated) nor isolated mice showed any change in their preference for the chamber associated with home cage odours. This suggests that the smell of home is a more powerful reinforcer for subordinate mice in that it can produce contextual conditioning to the environment in which it is experienced. Physiology & Behavior, 87,[955][956][957][958][959][960][961][962] Laboratory rodents spend a large amount of time in their home cage environment.How do they like it? It is known that the home cage can act as an effective reinforcer for mice tested in a radial maze procedure (45). However, very few studies have investigated how mice rate the home cage environment relative to alternatives, but see (59,60).An important aspect of the home environment is whether the animal is housed singly or in a group. In their natural state, house mice (Mus domesticus) typically live in social groups (24,25,26,38,48). As would be expected, what evidence there is suggests that group housing promotes welfare in laboratories (20,61,64,65).

show abstract

“…Crowcroft & Rowe 1963;Anderson 1970;Hurst 1986Hurst , 1987a. However, such evidence also suggests that commensal mice are unable to defend exclusive territories in large and complex areas where many hiding places allow intruders to evade pursuit by residents (Poole & Morgan 1976;Hurst 1987b), unless access points into the territory are strictly limited (Reimer & Petras 1967) or a large resident family group helps with territory defence (Lidicker 1976). In grassland habitats, where mice may use many inter-digitating tunnels and other runways through the dense undergrowth over comparatively wide areas, the borders of a territory would be open to access at innumerable points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social organization in the aboriginal house mouse,Mus spretus Lataste: behavioural mechanisms underlying the spatial dispersion of competitors

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Because rodents behave cryptically and often have large home ranges, the role of social defence in determining their spatial dispersion in grassland remains an enigma. Individual dispersion and access to resources could be determined mainly by the aggressive exclusion of intruders from large territories by residents, or by the scattered distribution of resources and avoidance of dominant competitors occupying preferred sites. The ways in which predictions from these two hypotheses correspond to intra-sexual competitive behaviour within unfamiliar dyads of the mouse Mus spretus, recently captured from two grassland populations, were examined. A series of tests in enclosures examined (1) exploration by intruders given a choice between a resident's soiled sites versus clean sites, or between resident-soiled sites versus sites bearing their own odour, in the absence of the resident; (2) the response of an intruder on meeting either the resident or another mouse, in an adjacent clean tunnel; and (3) the response of a resident to an intruder compared with mice meeting in a clean enclosure. In both sexes, dyads quickly established dominance relationships through brief attacks and chases, and static defensive postures, rather than persistent pursuit and flight. Intruders were strongly attracted to a resident's nest and subsequently were more aggressive towards the resident than towards an opponent from an unfamiliar enclosure. There was less differentiation in competitive behaviour and more mutual fighting between residents and intruders than between mice in clean enclosures, with relative body weight being the most important factor determining competitive behaviour. The results were thus more consistent with competition for dominance over suitable sites than investment in fierce aggression to drive competitors away.

show abstract

Social and territorial behaviour of laboratory mice (Mus musculus L.) in small complex areas

Cited by 101 publications

References 19 publications

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Social organization in the aboriginal house mouse,Mus spretus Lataste: behavioural mechanisms underlying the spatial dispersion of competitors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About