Acta Theriologica

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 343–356 | Cite as

Scent marking by common volesMicrotus arvalis in the presence of a same-sex neighbour

  • Alexandre Dobly


Several vole species use scent marked runways radiating from their burrows for foraging and dispersion. These marks are probably used for social communication. This 4-day laboratory study investigated the environmental and social causations of marking inside pre-existing corridors in male and female common volesMicrotus arvalis (Pallas, 1778). Firstly I tested the novelty and the reinforcement hypotheses in isolated voles, predicting respectively a habituation or a continuous increase in mark deposition. I then confronted with each other two same-sex voles for two days to investigate the differences between males and females in the pattern of marks inside three corridors, one of which runs along the common partition with the neighbour. I tested the self-advertisement and territorial-defence hypotheses, respectively predicting in the presence of a neighbour either a similar marking between the three corridors or a greater marking in the corridor close to the neighbour than in the two other corridors. The results showed no habituation in marking, even in a familiar environment, confirming the reinforcement hypothesis. After the addition of a neighbour, only the females left more marks in the corridor that ran alongside the common border than in the two other corridors. The territorial-defence hypothesis was thus confirmed in (territorial) females while the self-advertisement was supported in (non-territorial) males. Finally, I tested the competitive-ability hypothesis in females, stating that the abundance of scent marks of an individual before a social interaction can predict its degree of intolerance in a future social interaction. The results from female pairs physically interacting for four days support the hypothesis.

Key words

Microtus arvalis odour rodent runways territory defence novelty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bolhuis J. J., Strijkstra A. M., Moor E. and van der Lende K. 1988. Preferences for odours of conspecific non-siblings in the common vole,Microtus arvalis. Animal Behaviour 36: 1551–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyce C. C. K. and Boyce J. L. III 1988. Population biology ofMicrotus arvalis. III. Regulation of numbers and breeding dispersion of females. Journal of Animal Ecology 57: 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown R. E. 1985. The rodents II: suborder Myomorpha. [In: Social odours in mammals. R. E. Brown and D. W. MacDonald, eds]. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 345–457.Google Scholar
  4. de Jonge G. 1980. Response to con- and heterospecific male odours by the volesMicrotus agrestis, M. arvalis andClethrionomys glareolus with respect to the competition for space. Behaviour 73: 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Jonge G. 1983. Aggression and group formation in the volesMicrotus agrestis, M. arvalis andClethrionomys glareolus in relation to intra- and interspecific competition. Behaviour 84: 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickman C. R. 1986. A method for censusing small mammals in urban habitats. Journal of Zoology, London 210: 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dienske H. 1979. The importance of social interactions and habitat in competition betweenMicrotus agrestis andMicrotus arvalis. Behaviour 71: 1–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobly A. 2001. Movement patterns of male common voles (Microtus arvalis) in a network of Y junctions: role of distant visual cues and scent marks. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 2228–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobly A. and Rozenfeld F. M. 2000. Burrowing by common voles (Microtus arvalis) in various social environments. Behaviour 137: 1443–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drickamer L. C. 1989. Patterns of deposition of urine containing chemosignals that affect puberty and reproduction by wild stock male and female house mice (Mus domesticus). Journal of Chemical Ecology 15: 1407–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drickamer L. C. 2001. Urine marking and social dominance in male house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Behavioural Processes 53: 113–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenberg J. F. and Kleiman D. G. 1972. Olfactory communication in mammals. Annual Review of Ecolody and Systematics 3: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferkin M. H. 1988. The effect of familiarity on social interactions in meadow voles,Microtus pennsylvanicus: a laboratory and field study. Animal Behaviour 36: 1816–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferkin M. H., Ferkin F. H. and Richmond M. 1994. Sources of scent used by prairie voles,Microtus ochrogaster, to convey sexual identity to conspecifics. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 2205–2209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferkin M. H. and Johnston R. E. 1995. Meadow voles,Microtus pennsylvanicus, use multiple sources of scent for sex recognition. Animal Behaviour 49: 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferkin M. H., Mech S. G. and Paz-y-Miño C. G. 2001. Scent marking in meadow voles and prairie voles: a test of three hypotheses. Behaviour 138: 1319–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galef B. G. and Buckley L. L. 1996. Use of foraging trails by Norway rats. Animal Behaviour 51: 765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gheusi G., Goodall G. and Dantzer R. 1997. Individually distinctive odours represent individual conspecifics in rats. Animal Behaviour 53: 935–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosling L. M. 1982. A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 60: 89–118.Google Scholar
  20. Gosling L. M. and McKay H. V. 1990. Competitor assessment by scent matching: an experimental test. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 26: 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harestad A. S. and Shackleton D. M. 1990. Cover and use of travel routes by female Townsend’s voles in a laboratory arena. Biology and Behaviour 15: 196–204.Google Scholar
  22. Heise S. and Rozenfeld F. M. 1999. Reproduction and urine marking in laboratory groups of female common voles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25: 1671–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurst J. L., Fang J. and Barnard C. J. 1993. The role of substrate odours in maintaining social tolerance between male house mice,Mus musculus domesticus. Animal Behaviour 45: 997–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurst J. L., Hayden L., Kingston M., Luck R. and Sorensen K. 1994. Response of the aboriginal house mouseMus spretus Lataste to tunnels bearing the odours of conspecifics. Animal Behaviour 48: 1219–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacquot J. J. and Solomon N. G. 1997. Effects of site familiarity on movement patterns of male prairie voleMicrotus ochrogaster. American Midlands Naturalist 138: 414–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jamon M. 1994. An analysis of trail-following behaviour in the wood mouse,Apodemus sylvaticus. Animal Behaviour 47: 1127–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jannett F. J. Jr 1978. Dosage response of the vesicular, preputial, anal and hip glands of the male vole,Microtus montanus, to testosterone propionate. Journal of Mammalogy 59: 772–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jannett F. J. Jr 1986. Morphometric patterns among microtine rodents. I. Sexual selection suggested by relative scent gland development in representative voles (Microtus). [In: Chemical signals in vertebrates 4: Ecology, evolution and comparative biology. D. Duvall, D. Müller-Schwarze and R. M. Silverstein, eds]. Plenum Press, New York: 541–550.Google Scholar
  29. Johnston R. E. 1983. Chemical signals and reproductive behaviour. [In: Pheromones and reproduction in mammals. J. G. Vandenbergh, ed]. Academic Press, Orlando: 3–37.Google Scholar
  30. Johnston R. E., Chiang G. and Tung C. 1994. The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters. Animal Behaviour 48: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnston R. E. and Jernigan P. 1994. Golden hamsters recognize individuals, not just individual scents. Animal Behaviour 48: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones R. B. and Nowell N. W. 1973. The effect of familiar visual and olfactory cues on the aggressive behaviour of mice. Physiology and Behavior 10: 221–223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kareem A. M. and Barnard C. J. 1982. The importance of kinship and familiarity in social interactions between mice. Animal Behaviour 30: 594–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koivunen V., Korpimäki E. and Hakkarainen H. 1998. Refuge sites of voles under owl predation risk: priority of dominant individuals. Behavioral Ecology 9: 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lai S. C. and Johnston R. E. 1994. Individual odors in Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus campbelli). Ethology 96: 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lavenex P. and Schenk F. 1998. Olfactory traces and spatial learning in rats. Animal Behaviour 56: 1129–1136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lidicker W. Z. Jr 1980. The social biology of the California vole. The Biologist 62: 46–55.Google Scholar
  38. Macdonald D. W. 1985. The carnivores: Order Carnivora. [In: Social odours in mammals. R. E. Brown and D. W. Macdonald, eds]. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 619–722.Google Scholar
  39. Mackin-Rogalska R. 1979. Elements of the spatial organization of a common vole population. Acta Theriologica 24: 171–199.Google Scholar
  40. Maruniak J. A., Owen K., Bronson F. H. and Desjardin C. 1974. Urinary marking in male house mice: responses to novel environmental and social stimuli. Physiology and Behavior 12: 1035–1039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelikán J. 1982.Microtus arvalis on mown and unmown meadow. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Scientiarum Bohemicae Brno 16: 1–36.Google Scholar
  42. Quay W. B. 1962. Apocrine sweat glands in the angulus oris of microtine rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 43: 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reasner D. S. and Johnston R. E. 1987. Scent marking by male dwarf hamsters (Phodopus sungorus campbelli) in response to conspecific odors. Behavioral and Neural Biology 48: 43–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rozenfeld F. M. and Rasmont R. 1991. Odour cue recognition by dominant male bank voles,Clethrionomys glareolus. Animal Behaviour 41: 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas S. A. and Wolff J. O. 2002. Scent marking in voles: a reassessment of counter marking, over marking and self-advertisement. Ethology 108: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Viitala J., Korpimäki E., Palokangas P. and Koivula M. 1995. Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature 373: 425–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolff J. O. 1993. Why are female small mammals territorial? Oikos 68: 364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolff J. O. and Johnson M. F. 1979. Scent marking in taiga voles,Microtus xanthognathus. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 400–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolton R. J. 1985. A possible role for faeces in range marking by the wood mouse,Apodemus sylvaticus. Notes Mammal Society 50: 286–291.Google Scholar
  50. Zuri I., Gazit I. and Terkel J. 1997. Effect of scent marking in delaying territorial invasion in the blind mole-ratSpalax ehrenbergi. Behaviour 134: 867–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre Dobly
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Biology of Mammals — CP 231Free University of BrusselsBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations