Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on August 24, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(6):961-973; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari078
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/6/961    most recent
ari078v2
ari078v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Randall, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Eimes, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Randall, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Eimes, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Flexible social structure of a desert rodent, Rhombomys opimus: philopatry, kinship, and ecological constraints

Jan A. Randalla, Konstantin Rogovinb, Patricia G. Parkerc and John A. Eimesc

a Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA, b A. N. Severtzov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS, Leninskii prospect 33, Moscow 119071, Russia, and c Department of Biology, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA

Address correspondence to J. A. Randall. E-mail: jrandall{at}sfsu.edu.

We tested hypotheses based on philopatry, kinship, and ecological constraints to explain sociality in a semifossorial desert rodent, the great gerbil, Rhombomys opimus. Data were collected in the field in Uzbekistan in the spring and fall of 1996 and 1998–2004. Population densities fluctuated dramatically with high turnover in both males and females to reveal that dispersal and social structure were density dependent. Fewer gerbils dispersed at higher densities and members of family groups dispersed together. A majority of females lived in groups at high densities, but as population densities declined, proportionally more females were solitary. DNA analysis revealed that group-living females were genetically similar, whereas solitary females visited by the same male, as well as adult males and females in the same family group, were usually not genetically similar. Reproductive success as measured by the number of emergent pups and survival of juveniles during the summer drought was not related to group size or whether females were philopatric. A majority of females in family groups reproduced, and all females engaged in cooperative behaviors. We accepted three hypotheses to explain fluctuations in group formation in the great gerbil: variation in food abundance and distribution, habitat saturation, and kinship. We conclude that great gerbils are facultatively social. Flexible social behavior may be adaptive in unpredictable desert conditions. Females live solitarily under conditions of limited food and high mortality that disrupt social behavior and group formation and share territories with female kin under favorable conditions for survival and reproduction when kin groups can be maintained. Males adjust to the distribution of females.

Key words: desert, gerbil, philopatry, Rhombomys opimus, social.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
K. E. Lucia, B. Keane, L. D. Hayes, Y. K. Lin, R. L. Schaefer, and N. G. Solomon
Philopatry in prairie voles: an evaluation of the habitat saturation hypothesis
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2008; 19(4): 774 - 783.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.