Contemporary Problems of Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 116–124 | Cite as

The dispersal of the pygmy wood mouse (Sylvaemus uralensis Pallas, 1811) and the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus Schreber, 1780) in fragmented landscapes

  • O. V. TolkachevEmail author


Migration processes as well as the birth and death rates play the key role in the population dynamics. The main type of movements of the mouse-like rodents outside their home ranges is dispersal. Dispersal processes are still poorly studied: the typical and maximum dispersal distances of different species, as well as the permeability rate of certain landscape elements have not been determined yet. The purpose of this work was to study the dispersal of the two most abundant species by a modified method of nonselective marking. It is found that the distance of dispersal of Sylvaemus uralensis Pallas, 1811 is greater than that of Clethrionomys glareolus Schreber, 1780. The dispersal range of the bank vole is determined (up to 2 km), which is the greatest of all ever determined values for this species. The landscape properties have considerable effect on the dispersal and spatial structure of populations. Landscape barriers limit the processes of dispersal, thus increasing the local density of populations. The article also presents the first description of the “migrant trap” effect.


rodents dispersal long-distance movements 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akaike, H., A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., 1974, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, P.K., Dispersal in Rodents: A Resident Fitness Hypothesis, Spec. Publ. No. 9, Topeka, KS: Am. Soc. Mammal., 1989.Google Scholar
  3. Andrzejewski, R. and Babinska-Werka, J., Bank vole populations: are their densities really high and individual home range small? Acta Theriol., 1986, vol. 31, no. 30, pp. 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Animal Dispersal: Small Mammals as a Model, Stenseth, N.C. and Lidicker, W.Z., Eds., Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. Apeldoorn, R.C., Oostenbrink, W.T., Winden, A., and Zee, F.F., Effects of habitat fragmentation on the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural landscape, Oikos, 1992, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakowski, C. and Kozakiewicz, M., The effect of forest road on bank vole and yellow-necked mouse populations, Acta Theriol., 1988, vol. 33 (25), pp. 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bol’shakov, V.N. and Bazhenov, A.V., Radionukleidnye metody mecheniya v populyatsionnoi ekologii mlekopitayushchikh (Radionuclide Labeling in population Ecology of Mammals), Moscow: Nauka, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, W.H., Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals, J. Mammal., 1943, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coffin, A.W., From road kill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads, J. Transp. Geogr., 2007, vol. 15, pp. 396–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corridor Ecology. The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation, Hilty, J.A., Lidicker, W.Z., and Merenlender, A.M., Eds., London: Island Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Crier, J.K., Tetracyclines as a fluorescent marker in bones and teeth of rodents, J. Wildlife Manage., 1970, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 829–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, R.W., Hines, L.R., Stokey, E.H., Vessey, R.E., and Yuda, N.N., Pharmacology of tetracycline, Antibiot. Annu., 1954, pp. 63–69.Google Scholar
  13. English, A.R., P’an, S.Y., McBride, T.J., Gardocki, J.F., Halsema, G.V., and Wright, W.A., Tetracycline–microbiologic, pharmacologic, and clinical evaluation, Antibiot. Annu., 1954, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
  14. Forman, R.T., Road ecology: a solution for the giant embracing us, Landscape Ecol., 1998, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, B.J., Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecol., 2003, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grigorkina, E.B. and Olenev, G.V., Migration of rodents in the zone affected by East Ural radioactive trace: radiobiological aspect, Radiats. Biol., Radioekol., 2013, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 76–83.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M., Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain, Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 1991, vol. 42, pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karulin, B.E., Nikitina, N.A., Khlyap, L.A., Litvin, V.Yu., Okhotskii, Yu.V., Al’bov, S.A., Sushkin, N.D., and Pavlovskii, Yu.S., Diurnal activity and used of the territory of wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) according to observation of the species labeled by Ñî60, Zool. Zh., 1976, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 112–120.Google Scholar
  19. Klevezal’, G.A. and mina, M.V., Group labeling of rodents using tetracycline and its possible use for ecological studies, Zool. Zh., 1980, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 936–941.Google Scholar
  20. Krohne, D.T. and Hoch, G.A., Demography of Peromyscus leucopus populations on habitat patches: the role of dispersal, Can. J. Zool., 1999, vol. 77, pp. 1247–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levins, R., Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control, Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am., 1969, vol. 15, pp. 237–240.Google Scholar
  22. Madison, D.M., Activity rhythms and spacing, in Biology of New World Microtus, Spec. Publ. No. 8, Topeka, KS: Am. Soc. Mammal., 1985, pp. 373–419.Google Scholar
  23. Maier, T.J., Long-distance movements by female whitefooted mice, Peromyscus leucopus, in extensive mixedwood forest, Can. Field-Nat., 2002, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 108–111.Google Scholar
  24. Merriam, G., Kozakiewicz, M., Tsuchiya, E., and Hawley, K., Barriers as boundaries for metapopulations and demes of Peromyscus leucopus in farm landscapes, Landscape Ecol., 1989, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nikitina, N.A., Red voles, in Itogi mecheniya mlekopitayushchikh (The Results of Labeling of Mammals), Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 189–219.Google Scholar
  26. Nikitina, N.A., Karulin, B.E., Litvin, V.Yu., Khlyap, L.A., Al’bov, S.A., Sushkin, N.D., and Okhotskii, Yu.V., The size of day territory and possible structure of individual sites of some rodents, Zool. Zh., 1977, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 1860–1869.Google Scholar
  27. Sergeev, V.E., Specific orientation of the shrews in water, Ekologiya, 1973, no. 6, pp. 87–90.Google Scholar
  28. Shchipanov, N.A. and Kuptsov, A.V., Non-residence of small mammals and its role in population activity, Usp. Sovrem Biol., 2004, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 28–43.Google Scholar
  29. Wilkins, K.T., Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal, Southwest. Nat., 1982, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zollner, P.A. and Lima, S.L., Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice: perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat, Oikos, 1997, vol. 80, pp. 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural BranchRussian Academy of SciencesYekaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations