Social interaction alters attraction to competitor's odour in the mouseMus spretusLataste

Hurst, Jane L.; Gray, Stuart; Davey, Paul; Young, Dominic; Corbishley, Jonathan; Dawson, Claire

doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0515

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There seemed to be much opportunity among M. spretus males for incursion into neighbouring ranges while the resident was elsewhere, so why did this not occur? Our ®nding that mice were very restricted in the sites that they used, together with the ®nding of Hurst, Hall et al (1996;see also Hurst, Hayden et al, 1994;Hurst, Gray et al, 1997) that competitors are strongly attracted to such occupied sites, suggests that only a few sites would be attractive to competitors and therefore need to be defended. These`core areas' were typically small (< 2 m 2 ) and, even when mice had more than one core area within their range, these tended to be close together, and thus still occupied only a small percentage of the total range area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Microhabitat and spatial dispersion of the grassland mouse (Mus spretus Lataste)

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many small mammals inhabiting vegetation habitats where food resources are scattered have large home ranges with limited overlap. One way that they may effectively defend large territories is to establish dominance over the limited number of sites that provide good protection from predators, since displacement from these sites could have a very high cost to intruders. To examine this hypothesis we studied the ®ne-scale use of habitat and spatial dispersion of all adult male Mus spretus inhabiting a 1.1 ha grassland study site near Lisbon, Portugal, by radio telemetry, at the start of the breeding season. The location of each of the 10 males was mapped every hour, 24 h/day for up to seven days. Microhabitat characteristics were compared between a random sample of points in the study site and those where mice were found. Individual ranges did not overlap, despite the close proximity of their borders and the occupation of almost all suitable habitat, suggesting that individual dispersion was strongly in¯uenced by the presence of neighbours; mean range size was 343 95 m 2 . Residents covered less than one-third of their total range over 24 h, though neighbours did not intrude despite the apparent opportunities. Each male territory overlapped the territory of at least two females. Mice were neither nocturnal nor crepuscular, moving around mostly during the morning and evening. They avoided open woodland or pathways, preferring grassland sites with tall vegetation and sites where shrubs, bramble, or dead wood provided additional cover. Most ®xes per male (70%) were located in one to four core areas, which represented only a tiny proportion of each range (6.9 0.9%). Although exclusive defence of large complex ranges is likely to be impracticable, defence of core areas seems much more feasible. Our results thus support our hypothesis that mice may be able to maintain large exclusive ranges due to a combination of high predation pressure and a limited number of sites with suf®cient ground and overhead cover. This will result in a very high risk to mice entering areas where competitors have priority of access to protected sites.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Microhabitat and spatial dispersion of the grassland mouse (Mus spretus Lataste)

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…M. spretus appears to use odor cues to identify 840-Mus spretus MAMMALIAN SPECIES 5 occupied areas and then competes for dominance over them ). Both trapping and radiotelemetry studies show that the ranges of adult males are mutually exclusive, whereas adult females have similarly dispersed areas but that overlap with those of males (Cassaing and Croset 1985;Hurst et al 1996Hurst et al , 1997. Lactating females are particularly aggressive (Hurst et al 1996).…”

Section: Behaviormentioning

confidence: 96%

Mus spretus (Rodentia: Muridae)

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Here, territory-holders initially establish dominance through a series of brief chases, the intruders indicating subordinancy by standing and raising their forepaws and exposing their bellies (Crawley, 2000). Once their subordinancy is established, familiar intruders are either tolerated, or chased less vigorously (Brown, 1953;Gray and Hurst, 1997;Hurst et al, 1997).…”

Section: Dominance and Territorial Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

Latham

Mason

2004

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

288

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding a species' behaviour in natural conditions can give insights into its development, responses and welfare in captivity. Here, we review research and pest control literatures on the free-living house mouse (Mus musculus), analysing its sensory world, developmental processes and behaviour to suggest how laboratory environments might affect mouse welfare, normalcy, test design, and behaviour. Mouse development from foetus to weaning is influenced by prenatal stress and nutrient levels, and post-natal litter size and other factors affecting maternal care, all with lasting effects on adult bodyweight, aggression, activity levels, stress responsiveness and masculinisation. These influences may well be important in the laboratory, for example unwittingly differing between facilities leading to site-differences in phenotype. Murine senses are dominated by olfactory, auditory and tactile cues. Their hearing extends into the ultrasonic, and vision, from mid-range wavelengths to the ultraviolet. In mouse facilities, behaviour and welfare may therefore also be affected by sensory stimuli unnoticed by humans. The physical and social environment and behaviour of wild mice differ greatly from those of laboratory mice. Dispersal age varies with resource-levels and social cues, and mice often either live alone or in family groups. Mice occupy territories/ranges measuring a few square meters to several square kilometers, and which allow running, climbing, and burrowing. Mice are often active during dawn/dusk, and spend their time patrolling their territories, investigating neighbours' odour cues, foraging, finding mates and rearing litters. The potential impact of these many differences and restrictions on laboratory mouse development, normalcy and welfare has only begun to be explored.

show abstract

Social interaction alters attraction to competitor's odour in the mouseMus spretusLataste

Cited by 25 publications

References 33 publications

Microhabitat and spatial dispersion of the grassland mouse (Mus spretus Lataste)

Microhabitat and spatial dispersion of the grassland mouse (Mus spretus Lataste)

Mus spretus (Rodentia: Muridae)

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About