Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on February 22, 2006
Behavioral Ecology 2006 17(3):410-418; doi:10.1093/beheco/arj048
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sociality in New World hystricognath rodents is linked to predators and burrow digging
a Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ecología & Biodiversidad, and Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago, Chile and b Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 621 Charles E. Young Drive South, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, USA
Address correspondence to L.A. Ebensperger. E-mail: lebensperger{at}bio.puc.cl.
Received 28 February 2005; revised 26 December 2005; accepted 10 January 2006.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The importance of predation and burrow digging in explaining the evolution of sociality is generally unclear. We focused on New World hystricognath rodents to evaluate three key predictions of the predation hypothesis. First, large-bodied surface-dwelling species will be more vulnerable because they are more detectable; thus sociality should be associated with body size. Second, surface-dwelling, diurnal species would be more vulnerable to predators than nocturnal species; thus sociality should be associated with the evolution of diurnality. Third, species living in open habitats will be more vulnerable; thus sociality should evolve in species living in open habitats. Regarding the importance of burrows, we tested if species that dig burrows can benefit from communal labor; thus, sociality should be associated with burrow digging. All traits had significant phylogenetic signal, thus comparative analyses should explicitly address this. In a comparative analysis on independent contrasts we found that sociality was correlated with body size (larger species were more social), diurnality (diurnal species were more social), and burrowing (burrowing species were more social), but we found no effect of overhead plant cover of habitat on sociality in hystricognath rodents. Somewhat different results were found when we analyzed the raw data. Taken together, our results provide support for a link between predation risk, burrow digging, and sociality in this group.
Key words: burrow digging, diurnality, group living, New World rodents, plant cover, predation risk.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Many animal species form groups, which range from temporary associations and aggregations to relatively stable social units (Blumstein, 2002
; Lee, 1994; Parrish et al., 1997). Because group living, or sociality, may impose reproductive as well as survival costs to group members (Hoogland, 1979, 1985; Van Vuren, 1996), evolutionary explanations to group living have relied on fitness advantages to individuals that might compensate these costs (Alexander, 1974; Bertram, 1978; Krebs and Davies, 1993). Alternatively, however, individuals might be ecologically constrained to remain in groups despite some associated costs (Brown, 1987; Waser, 1988).
Several nonmutually exclusive hypotheses about the benefits of sociality have been suggested. These include a decreased risk of predation, decreased costs of thermoregulation, lower costs of den or burrow construction, or an improved access to critical resources (Ebensperger, 2001; Krause and Ruxton, 2002). Regarding predation, individuals may reduce their per capita predation risk either through increasing collective vigilance and predator detection, diluting the risk, or through collective defense (Alexander, 1974; Pulliam, 1973; Van Schaik, 1983). Abundant evidence from within-species studies on vertebrates and invertebrates generally supports the hypothesis that individuals in larger groups increase collective vigilance and predator detection (e.g., Ebensperger and Wallem, 2002; Hoogland, 1981; Kenward, 1978; Uetz et al., 2002), dilute their per capita risk (e.g., Krause and Godin, 1995; Watt and Chapman, 1998; Watt et al., 1997), or improve chances of collective defense (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002). Together, this evidence suggests that decreasing predation risk is one major factor that maintains group living in some species.
Although intraspecific studies on contemporary organisms support a role for predators influencing the maintenance of sociality, conditions favoring the evolution of a trait need not be the same as those involved in its subsequent maintenance (Reeve and Sherman, 1993; Shelley and Blumstein, 2005). While both initial conditions favoring the evolution of a trait and those involved in its subsequent maintenance can be studied by means of the comparative method (Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Martins and Hansen, 1996), the effect of predation risk on sociality remains inconclusive. For instance, there is some support of the predation-risk hypothesis in some avian clades; the frequency of colonial nesting is more common among species that nest in more open, exposed to predation locations (Rolland et al., 1998). However, the analysis of two other metrics of sociality provides equivocal results. Thus, and contrary to expectations, communal roosting is more common in larger species of predatory birds, which supposedly face little predation risk because of their size and weaponry (Beauchamp, 1999, 2002). Similarly, avian flock feeding is not more common in open, relatively exposed habitats (Beauchamp, 2002). More recently, avian flocking was seen to disappear as predicted on some islands devoid of predators but persisted on several others (Beauchamp, 2004). There is a suggestion that insularity rather than predation risk may be responsible for the loss of such antipredator behavior following isolation on islands (Blumstein and Daniel, 2005).
Comparative evidence from mammals also provides some conflicting results. In support of the predation-risk hypothesis, large-bodied antelope species that use open habitats tend to be group living, whereas small-sized species that seek cover to hide from predators are either solitary or pair living (Brashares et al., 2000; Caro et al., 2004). Similarly, group size of delphinoid species is positively associated with habitat openness (Gygax, 2002). In contrast, more social primates do not suffer less predation as compared with their less social counterparts once the activity period is taken into account (Hill and Dunbar, 1998; but see Hill and Lee, 1998).
Sociality has also been linked to living in long-lasting, expansible nests or microhabitats safe from predation (Alexander et al., 1991). Thus, burrow digging has been linked to sociality in organisms such as rodents (Jarvis et al., 1994; Lacey and Ebensperger, in press; Powell and Fried, 1992). Cavities and burrows may provide several benefits to individuals, including a refuge to avoid unfavorable climatic conditions and a predator-free refuge (Kinlaw, 1999; Reichman and Smith, 1987). This seems particularly the case for species that need to be aboveground when active (Blumstein and Pelletier, 2005; Jackson, 2000; Karels and Boonstra, 1999; Kramer and Bonenfant, 1997). Therefore, individuals would benefit through sharing the costs of burrow construction and use. Alternatively, the set of safe burrows is limited and thus forms an ecological constraint that selects for group living. Either way, we predicted that burrow digging must be associated with sociality but mostly for species in open habitats where burrows would be most beneficial.
Rodents are a particularly good model system to examine correlates of predation risk on the evolution of sociality. Rodents are frequent prey of a large array of avian, mammalian, and reptilian predators (e.g., Jaksic, 1986; Jaksic et al., 1981), and available evidence from intraspecific studies generally supports the hypothesis that for some species group living is currently maintained through benefits derived from increased collective vigilance and predator detection (Ebensperger, 2001). In contrast, the role of predation risk in explaining rodent sociality across species has received less attention. Thus, sociality in the subterranean bathyergids (mole-rats) has been linked to ecological constraints on dispersal (Faulkes et al., 1997), whereas sociality among sciurids (marmots, squirrels) has been related to life-history constraints on dispersal (Armitage, 1999) and thermoregulatory benefits during hibernation (Arnold, 1993). The potential role of predation risk in the origin of sociality in these rodents remains unexplored.
Previous analyses of New World hystricognath rodents (guinea pigs, cavies, vizcachas) revealed no evidence for group living to be linked to a need for further parental investment, a potential life-history constraint (Ebensperger and Cofré, 2001). These analyses, on a smaller data set, also found that while group living was more prevalent among large-sized, supposedly more conspicuous, species, more social species did not use more open habitats (Ebensperger and Cofré, 2001). Intriguingly, species that actively dug their own burrows were also more social, which supported a link between burrows and group living. Here, we use an expanded data set on Neotropical hystricognath rodents, with a better-resolved phylogenetic hypothesis, to reexamine correlates of sociality in a rigorous phylogenetic context. Specifically, we examined interspecific associations between group size (an index of sociality) and three indices of predation risk. The influence of predation risk might be assessed through predation rate estimates. However, such estimates are difficult to obtain and are available for a very limited number of Neotropical hystricognaths (Kraus and Rödel, 2004). And, perhaps more importantly, a history of successful adaptations to this risk might lead to low contemporary levels of predation despite its historic importance. Thus, we used three other correlates of predation risk: (1) the amount of overhead shrub or tree cover in the habitat, a measure of habitat openness; (2) body size; and (3) activity period. In the case of burrow digging, we examined how group living varies across burrow-digging and nondigging species.
We expected that rodents in the open would live in larger groups. Overhead shrub or tree cover is widely used in comparative studies as a proxy to predation risk when more direct estimates of predation risk are not available (Brashares et al., 2000; Caro et al., 2004; Rolland et al., 1998; for an exception see Hill and Dunbar, 1998). We chose this index because rodents, other mammals, and birds generally perceive overhead shrub or tree cover as protective (Ebensperger, 2001; Ebensperger and Hurtado, 2005). For instance, experimental studies have revealed that predation by birds on small mammals is higher in open patches compared with bushy habitats (Dickman et al., 1991; Kotler et al., 1988, 1991; Longland and Price, 1991). Note, however, that overhead cover may have no effect against ground-dwelling predators such as snakes (Pierce et al., 1992), and some species (e.g., larger-bodied kangaroos) might actually find cover obstructive (Blumstein and Daniel, 2002).
We expected larger sized rodents to live in larger groups. Because rodents are typically much smaller than their predators (e.g., Jaksic et al., 1981), rodent size is more likely to increase conspicuousness and overall susceptibility to predation, rather than to provide an effective defense against predation (i.e., Beauchamp, 1999). Large-bodied rodent species would have a more difficult time hiding in vegetation and would require larger home ranges (i.e., greater exposure; Norrdahl and Korpimäki, 1998) than small-bodied species (Wolff and Guthrie, 1985). Studies documenting how predation rate varies with size within and across small subsets of species (typically 2–4) provide conflicting results: while some report large-sized species to suffer increased predation (Castro and Jaskic, 1995; Halle, 1988; Kotler et al., 1988; Longland and Jenkins, 1987), others studies reveal either no influence of size (Norrdahl and Korpimäki, 1998; Sundell et al., 2003), higher predation on small-sized species (Dickman et al., 1991; Longland and Jenkins, 1987; Trejo and Guthmann, 2003), or that this effect changes seasonally (Halle, 1988). However, a clearer pattern emerges from studies comparing larger sets of prey species. Thus, avian and mammalian predators of different continents are reported to select larger rodent prey, irrespective of their abundance, most likely to satisfy their energy requirements (Bozinovic and Medel, 1988; Jaksic, 1989). Additionally, rodents from islands typically increase their body size when compared to their mainland counterparts (Lomolino, 1985), most likely in response to decreased predation (Adler and Levins, 1994; Smith, 1992).
We expected that in surface-dwelling hystricognath rodents, diurnal species would be more social. Activity time is expected to influence predatory risk in three ways. First, diurnality might increase prey vulnerability to most visually oriented predators because it will improve prey detection. Illumination typically increases the ability of crepuscular and nocturnal bird predators to capture their rodent prey (Kotler et al., 1988, 1991; Topping et al., 1999), suggesting that nocturnality is an antipredator strategy to rodents. By the same token, nocturnality might be expected to increase predation risk of social species: because for predators that hunt using auditory cues, multiple individuals will increase noise, that is, solitary living will be favored. Third, diurnality is expected to assist in predator detection and monitoring. Sentinel behavior and collective visual scanning would be less efficient to avoid nocturnal predators (Beauchamp, 2002; Terborgh and Janson, 1986). Thus, and in contrast to a recently reported pattern finding no link in a much more diverse group of 209 species of rodents (Shelley and Blumstein, 2005), we predicted that for surface-dwelling hystricognath rodents, diurnal species would be found in larger groups than nocturnal species.
We expected that animals that dug burrows would be more social through its effect on reducing costs of burrow construction. Burrow digging has been linked to sociality in voles and mole-rats (Jarvis et al., 1994; Powell and Fried, 1992). Cavities and burrows may provide several benefits to most rodents (Kinlaw, 1999; Reichman and Smith, 1987). Therefore, individuals would benefit through sharing the costs of burrow construction and use. In particular, cooperative burrow digging or maintenance could be an adaptation for species that dwell on the surface for which burrows represent critical refuges from extreme thermal conditions and predators. Alternatively, the set of burrows is limited and thus forms a constraint that selects for group living. Either way, we predicted that burrow digging should be associated with sociality.
We evaluated our hypotheses comparatively by fitting regression models to raw data and phylogenetically independent contrast values.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The data set
We collected basic information about behavior and ecology of New World hystricognath rodents (Appendix), a well-supported monophyletic clade (Huchon and Douzery, 2001
). We considered every surface-dwelling species with available data on group size, a measure of sociality (e.g., Faulkes et al., 1997). A total of 32 species fitted this requirement, which comprised 32% of all surface-dwelling species of hystricognaths (Woods, 1993), and included representatives of all 10 extant families containing surface-dwelling species. We excluded fully subterranean (Ctenomyidae), arboreal (Erethizontidae), and fully aquatic (Myocastoridae, Myocastor coipus) forms as they (1) represented species with different modes of life, and (2) very little is known about their behavior and ecology. Our metric of group size included the number of adults reported as sharing a den or burrow system (most cases) or a territory (one case: Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris). Despite that our definition of group size emphasizes the sharing of dens or burrows, and social species included in our analysis also tend to be social foragers, that is, they are social when active aboveground (Appendix). Of these, we collected information on body mass, the amount of overhead shrub or tree cover in the typical habitat, activity period, and burrow-digging habits. We determined overhead plant cover after ranking the habitat of each species, from totally open (consisting of mostly bare ground, rank = 1) to dense forest patches (rank = 7). Activity was categorized either as mostly diurnal or mostly nocturnal. Finally, we categorized species as being either active burrow diggers or not (Appendix). Examinations of digging patterns are scant for surface-dwelling hystricognaths but the few available demonstrate that social species do communally dig burrows (Branch, 1993a; Ebensperger and Bozinovic, 2000).
Phylogenic information
We used the McKenna and Bell (1997) phylogeny to establish major relationships among the 32 species for which we obtained complete information. From there, we resolved polytomies within genera by using recent molecular information from species-level phylogenetic hypotheses (Shelley and Blumstein, 2005). The placement of Trinomys was based on Leite and Patton (2002), and the positions of Galea were based on Rowe and Honeycutt (2002).
Phylogenetically based statistical analyses
Before conducting a comparative analysis, it is desirable to determine whether or not there is a phylogenetic "signal" present for the traits of interest; without it, it may not be necessary to use formal phylogentic analyses (Garland et al., 2005; Irschick et al., 1997; Losos, 1999). A recent study found that more than 90% of comparative analyses that had more than 20 species illustrated some degree of nonrandom phylogenetic signal (Blomberg et al., 2003). Nonetheless, we determined whether traits were phylogenetically independent using the program Phylogenetic Independence 2.0 (Reeve and Abouheif, 2003) and selecting the 1000 simulations option. This program implements the test for serial independence (Abouheif, 1999) that tests for the nonrandomness in the set of trait values. We found that all six traits were significantly autocorrelated and thus not phylogenetically independent (all p values 
.001). We evaluated our hypotheses giving priority to the results of independent contrasts (Felsenstein, 1985, 2003). However, because the serial independence test (and other such approaches) has limitations (see Blomberg et al., 2003), we also provide results from raw analysis. To calculate independent contrasts we defined sociality as the log10 of the midpoint of the range of observed group sizes. Our continuous independent variables were the log10 of the midpoint of the range of observed body masses and the midpoint of the range of habitat tree cover. Midpoints are appropriate measures of central tendency, given a wide range of values within a species. We transformed group size and body mass to eliminate outliers and to meet assumptions of linear models. For some species, we only had a single value; these are noted in the Appendix with a "?" and this single value was used as the best estimate of that species' trait value. Following others (e.g., Purvis et al., 2000; Stuart-Fox and Ord, 2004), we calculated contrasts for dichotomous variables, in our case whether the species was diurnal or nocturnal and whether the species burrowed or not. Because our phylogeny did not have consistently good estimates of branch lengths, we assumed several models of evolution: a speciational model (where branch lengths were made equal and set to 1.0), the arbitrary transformation of Grafen (1989), a Nee transformation (cited in Purvis, 1995; where the distance from the tips to the focal node was calculated by log10 transforming the number of tips descending from that node), and a Pagel (1992) transformation (where nodal depth was made equal to the left and right descendent taxa, plus 1). We implemented these transformations in the PDAP 1.07 module (Midford et al., 2005) for Mesquite 1.06 (Maddison WP and Maddison DR, 2005). As required by the method, we forced all regressions through the origin. Given these various phylogenies, we then calculated independent contrasts in Compare 4.5 (Martins, 2003).
Given a set of raw variables and sets of independent contrasts, we analyzed them separately. First, we fitted a linear model on the raw data. For this, we included an intercept. Second, we fitted the same model with each of the different sets of standardized independent contrasts. As required by the method, there was no intercept and the regression was forced through the origin. Results from these different analyses on independent contrasts were identical, and we thus report only the results from the speciational model. In all cases, we interpret p values < .05 as significant, and we report R2 values and partial 
2 as a measure of effect size. All models were fitted in SPSS-11 for the Macintosh.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Raw data analyses
Overall, 69.6% of the variation in sociality was explained by a model fitted to species values (p < .001; Table 1). Larger species were more social, species living in more open habitats were more social, species that dug burrows were more social, and diurnality had no effect on sociality. We interpret these raw values with caution because all traits were significantly autocorrelated and thus not phylogenetically independent (all p values
.001).
|
Phylogenetically based analysis
Overall, 64.5% of the variation in sociality was explained by group size (p < .001; Table 1; Figure 1). Larger species were more social, habitat had no effect on sociality, burrow-digging species were more social, and diurnal species were more social.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Rodents are frequent prey of a large array of avian, mammalian, and reptilian predators. Our analysis revealed that important correlates of predation risk influenced group size across species in a way consistent with the hypothesis that variation in predation risk contributed to the evolution of sociality in surface-dwelling hystricognath rodents. Regardless of analysis, body size had a large effect on group living: larger species are more social. Burrowing had a small effect on sociality that, interestingly, was significant only in the analysis of phylogenetically independent contrasts. The effects of diurnality and habitat openness varied substantially based on the analytical method used. Because all traits were significantly phylogenetically nonindependent, we feel more confident interpreting the results from the analyses calculated with independent contrasts. Thus, we interpret our findings as meaning that large-sized, diurnal hystricognaths are more social, most likely in response to their higher conspicuousness to predators. On the other hand, our study complemented previous analyses (Ebensperger and Cofré, 2001
) in that more social species were also active burrow diggers, a finding supporting a link between sociality and burrow digging.
There are several explanations for our findings. First, avian and mammalian predators are reported to select larger rodent prey, and large-bodied rodent species would have a more difficult time hiding in vegetation and would require moving over larger areas (i.e., suffering greater exposure) than small-bodied species (Bozinovic and Medel, 1988; Norrdahl and Korpimäki, 1998; Wolff and Guthrie, 1985). Second, illumination typically increases the ability of crepuscular and nocturnal bird predators to capture their rodent prey (Kotler et al., 1988, 1991; Topping et al., 1999). Thus, diurnal species are likely more conspicuous to predators. Nocturnality, in turn, may select against sociality because social foragers will attract the attention of predators using auditory cues. Simultaneously, by being social, diurnal species could engage in corporate vigilance and increase the rate at which they detect predators. Sentinel behavior and collective visual scanning would be less efficient to avoid nocturnal predators (Beauchamp, 2002; Terborgh and Janson, 1986).
Cavities and burrows may provide rodents with multiple benefits, including protection against extreme climatic conditions, places to hide and contain offspring, and general protection against predation, among others (Kinlaw, 1999; Reichman and Smith, 1987). Therefore, either selection to decrease the costs of burrow construction and use (Branch, 1993a; Ebensperger and Bozinovic, 2000) or a limitation in the number of available burrows is expected to favor rodent group living.
Is there a link between predation risk and burrow digging? Clearly, yes. One major function of burrows is to provide a refuge against most mammalian and avian predators, particularly for those species that spend much of their active time aboveground (Blumstein and Pelletier, 2005; Holmes, 1984; Jackson, 2000; Karels and Boonstra, 1999; Kildaw, 1995; Kramer and Bonenfant, 1997; MacHutchon and Harestad, 1990). Thus predation risk will select for social living indirectly as individuals of these species would benefit through sharing the costs of burrow construction and use, as suggested for degus or plains vizcachas (Branch, 1993a; Ebensperger and Bozinovic, 2000). Even if the set of safe burrows is limited, such a constraint should select for group living. Collectively then, a need to cooperate during burrows and/or burrow sharing may proximately cause social living to (i.e., it will reduce costs of digging) but ultimately may reflect predation.
Unexpectedly, our analysis based on phylogenetically independent contrasts found no relationship between the amount of shrub or tree cover in the habitat and group size, suggesting that species living in open habitats were no more likely to evolve sociality as compared with species living in more vegetated areas (Figure 2). This finding is at odds with available evidence that demonstrates that predation by birds on small mammals is higher in open patches compared with bushy habitats (Dickman et al., 1991; Kotler et al., 1988, 1991; Longland and Price, 1991). Our finding also is in conflict with more indirect evidence supporting that shrubs provided protection against predation in some social New World hystricognaths such as cavies (Cavia aperea; Asher et al., 2004; Cassini, 1991) or degus (Ebensperger and Wallem, 2002; Lagos et al., 1995; Vásquez et al., 2002). More intriguingly, major events of hystricognath radiation in the New World overlapped a period of climatic changes that included the establishment of seasonally drier and more open habitats (Flynn and Wyss, 1998; Vucetich et al., 1999). Discrepancies may be explained, to some extent, if predators of hystricognaths are mostly terrestrial carnivores (which may use bushes to hide from their prey) rather than raptors. Available evidence suggests this might be so in the case of cavies (Kraus and Rödel, 2004), plains vizcachas (Lagostomus maximus; Branch, 1995), and capybaras (H. hydrochaeris; Macdonald, 1981) but not so in degus (Jaksic et al., 1981).
|
Despite the above caveat, our study adds to a body of existing evidence linking predation risk and sociality across mammals. For instance, large-sized artiodactyls that use more open habitats are typically social, whereas small-sized species that seek cover to hide from predators are either solitary or live in pairs (Brashares et al., 2000
; Caro et al., 2004). Heightened predation risk from using open habitats also may explain high degrees of sociality in mongooses (Veron et al., 2004). Among cercopithecoid primates, species and populations within species of habitats with a high frequency of predation tend to live in larger sized groups (Hill and Lee, 1998; but see Hill and Dunbar, 1998).
In the context of rodent sociality, our findings depart from previous comparative analyses of other rodent groups that linked group living to ecological and life-history constraints on dispersal (Armitage, 1999; Faulkes et al., 1997) and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis that no single factor is responsible for driving the evolution of sociality (i.e., Ebensperger, 2001). Future comparative analysis of different rodent groups will benefit from contrasting the role of predators with that of other constraints simultaneously. For instance, feeding habits may predispose some organisms to adopt social life (Beauchamp, 2002; 2004). Most New World hystricognaths are generalist herbivores, but species differences do occur (e.g., Mares and Ojeda, 1982), and body size, the factor explaining most (53–55%) of the variation in hystricognath group size, can influence feeding habits (Brown, 1995). Feeding habits, in turn, may impinge on foraging behavior, including social foraging strategies.
APPENDIX Morphological, ecological, and behavioral traits of cursorial and semifossorial New World hystricognath rodents
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Habitats are ranked according to the amount of tree cover, from no cover (1) to the highest amount of cover (7). Question marks indicate uncertainties in the data source. Asterisks are used to indicate group-living species with reports of social foraging. Values enclosed in [ ] are values used in analyses.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
Funding was provided by a FONDECYT grant 1020861 to L.A.E. and UCLA Life Sciences Dean's Recruitment and Retention Funds to D.T.B. During the writing of this article, L.A.E. also was supported by the Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ecología & Biodiversidad (FONDAP 1501-001). We thank Kim Pollard, Guy Beauchamp, Terry Ord, Ted Garland, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Abouheif E, 1999. A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol Ecol Res 1:895–909.
Adler GH, Endries M, Piotter S, 1997. Spacing patterns within populations of a tropical rodent, Proechimys semispinosus, on five Panamanian islands. J Zool Lond 241:43–53.
Adler GH, Levins R, 1994. The island syndrome in rodent populations. Q Rev Biol 69:473–490.[CrossRef][Medline]
Alexander RD, 1974. The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383.[CrossRef]
Alexander RD, Noonan KM, Crespi BJ, 1991. The evolution of eusociality. In: The biology of the naked mole-rat (Sherman PW, Jarvis JUM, Alexander RD, eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press; 3–44.
Alho CJR, 1982. Brazilian rodents: their habitats and habits. Pymatuning Lab Ecol Spec Pub Ser 6:143–166.
Anderson S, Woods CA, Morgan GS, Oliver WLR, 1983. Geocapromys brownii. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 201:1–5.
Armitage KB, 1999. Evolution of sociality in marmots. J Mammal 80:1–10.[CrossRef]
Arnold W, 1993. Social evolution in marmots and the adaptive value of joint hibernation. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 86:79–93.
Asher M, Spinelli de Oliveira E, Sachser N, 2004. Social system and spatial organization of wild guinea pigs (Cavia aperea) in a natural population. J Mammal 85:788–796.[CrossRef]
Beauchamp G, 1999. The evolution of communal roosting in birds: origin and secondary losses. Behav Ecol 10:675–687.
Beauchamp G, 2002. Higher-level evolution of intraspecific flock-feeding in birds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:480–487.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Beauchamp G, 2004. Reduced flocking by birds on islands with relaxed predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1039–1042.[Medline]
Bertram BCR, 1978. Living in groups: predators and prey. In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (Krebs JR, Davies, NB, eds). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 64–96.
Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR, 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Blumstein DT, 2002. Group living. In: Encyclopedia of evolution (Pagel M, ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 448–450.
Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, 2002. Isolation from mammalian predators differentially affects two congeners. Behav Ecol 13:657–663.
Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, 2005. The loss of anti-predator behaviour following isolation on islands. Proc R Soc B 272:1663–1668.[Medline]
Blumstein DT, Pelletier D, 2005. Yellow-bellied marmot hiding time is sensitive to variation in costs. Can J Zool 83:363–367.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Bozinovic F, Contreras LC, 1990. Basal rate of metabolism and temperature regulation of two desert herbivorous octodontid rodents: Octomys mimax and Tympanoctomys barrerae. Oecologia 84:567–570.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Bozinovic F, Medel RG, 1988. Body size, energetic and foraging mode of raptors in central Chile: an inference. Oecologia 75:456–458.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Branch LC, 1993a. Social organization and mating system of the plains viscacha (Lagostomus maximus). J Zool Lond 229:473–491.
Branch LC, 1993b. Intergroup and intragroup spacing in the plains vizcacha, Lagostomus maximus. J Mammal 74:890–900.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Branch LC, 1995. Observations of predation by pumas and Geoffroy's cats on the plains vizcacha in semi-arid scrub of central Argentina. Mammalia 59:152–156.[Web of Science]
Brashares JS, Garland T Jr, Arcese P, 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope. Behav Ecol 11:452–463.
Brown JH, 1995. Macroecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown JL, 1987. Helping and communal breeding in birds: ecology and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Caro TM, Graham CM, Stoner CJ, Vargas JK, 2004. Adaptive significance of antipredator behaviour in artiodactyls. Anim Behav 67:205–228.[CrossRef]
Cassini MH, 1991. Foraging under predation risk in the wild guinea pig Cavia aperea. Oikos 62:20–24.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Castro SA, Jaksic FM, 1995. Great horned and barn owls prey differentially according to the age/size of a rodent in the northcentral Chile. J Raptor Res 29:245–249.
Clough GC, 1972. Biology of the Bahaman hutia, Geocapromys ingrahami. J Mammal 53:807–823.[CrossRef]
Contreras JR, Roig VG, 1978. Observaciones sobre la organización social, la ecología y la estructura de los habitáculos de Microcavia australis australis en Ñacuñán, Provincia de Mendoza. Ecosur (Argentina) 5:191–199.
Díaz GB, Ojeda RA, Gallardo MH, Giannoni S, 2000. Tympanoctomys barrerae. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 646:1–4.
Dickman CR, Predavec M, Lynam AJ, 1991. Differential predation of size and sex classes of mice by the barn owl, Tyto alba. Oikos 62:67–76.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Dubost G, 1988. Ecology and social life of the red acouchy, Myoprocta exilis; comparison with the orange-rumped agouti, Dasyprocta leporina. J Zool Lond 214:107–123.
Duffy JE, Morrison CL, Macdonald KS, 2002. Colony defense and behavioral differentiation in the eusocial shrimp Synalpheus ragalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:488–495.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ebensperger LA, 2001. A review of the evolutionary causes of rodent group-living. Acta Theriol 46:115–144.
Ebensperger LA, Bozinovic F, 2000. Communal burrowing in the hystricognath rodent, Octodon degus: a benefit of sociality? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:365–369.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ebensperger LA, Cofré H, 2001. On the evolution of group-living in the New World cursorial hystricognath rodents. Behav Ecol 12:227–236.
Ebensperger LA, Hurtado MJ, 2005. On the relationship between herbaceous cover and vigilance activity of degus (Octodon degus). Ethology 111:593–608.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ebensperger LA, Hurtado MJ, Soto-Gamboa M, Lacey EA, Chang AT, 2004. Communal nesting and kinship in degus (Octodon degus). Naturwissenschaften 91:391–395.[Web of Science][Medline]
Ebensperger LA, Wallem PK, 2002. Grouping increases the ability of the social rodent, Octodon degus, to detect predators when using exposed microhabitats. Oikos 98:491–497.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Eisenberg JF, 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics: the northern Neotropics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emmons LH, 1982. Ecology of Proechimys (Rodentia, Echimyidae) in southeastern Peru. Trop Ecol 23:280–290.
Emmons LH, Feer F, 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals: a field guide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Faulkes CG, Bennett NC, Bruford MW, O'Briein HP, Aguilar GH, Jarvis JUM, 1997. Ecological constraints drive social evolution in the African mole-rats. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1619–1627.[Medline]
Felsenstein J, 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15.
Felsenstein J, 2003. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Flynn JJ, Wyss AR, 1998. Recent advances in South American mammalian paleontology. Trends Ecol Evol 13:449–454.[CrossRef]
Fulk GW, 1976. Notes on the activity, reproduction, and social behavior of Octodon degus. J Mammal 57:495–505.[CrossRef]
Galende G, 1998. El chinchillón patagónico. Fauna andino patagónica: aportes para su conocimiento. Bariloche: Sociedad Naturalista Andino Patagónica, Serie Técnica.
Garland TJ, Bennett AF, Rezende EL, 2005. Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J Exp Biol 208:3015–3035.
Grafen A, 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 326:119–157.[Web of Science][Medline]
Gygax L, 2002. Evolution of group size in the superfamily Delphinoidea (Delphinidae, Phocoenidae and Monodontidae): a quantitative comparative analysis. Mammal Rev 32:295–314.[CrossRef]
Halle S, 1988. Avian predation upon a mixed community of common voles (Microtus arvalis) and wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus). Oecologia 75:451–455.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Harris G, 1998. A guide to the birds and mammals of coastal Patagonia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Harvey PH, Pagel MD, 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herrera EA, Macdonald DW, 1987. Group stability and the structure of a capybara population. Symp Zool Soc Lond 58:115–130.
Herrera EA, Macdonald DW, 1989. Resource utilization and territoriality in group-living capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). J Anim Ecol 58:667–679.[CrossRef]
Hill RA, Dunbar RIM, 1998. An evaluation of the roles of predation rate and predation risk as selective pressures on primate grouping behaviour. Behaviour 135:411–430.[Web of Science]
Hill RA, Lee PC, 1998. Predation risk as an influence on group size in cercopithecoid primates: implications for social structure. J Zool Lond 245:447–456.[CrossRef]
Holmes WG, 1984. Predation risk and foraging behavior of the hoary marmot in Alaska. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:293–301.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hoogland JL, 1979. Aggression, ectoparasitism, and other possible costs of prairie dog (Sciuridae, Cynomys spp.) coloniality. Behaviour 69:1–35.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hoogland JL, 1981. The evolution of coloniality in white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Sciuridae: Cynomys leucurus and C. ludovicianus). Ecology 62:252–272.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hoogland JL, 1985. Infanticide in prairie dogs: lactating females kill offspring of close kin. Science 230:1037–1040.
Howe RJ, 1974. Marking behaviour of the Bahaman hutia (Geocapromys ingrahami). Anim Behav 22:645–649.[CrossRef]
Huchon D, Douzery EJP, 2001. From the Old World to the New World: a molecular chronicle of the phylogeny and biogeography of hystricognath rodents. Mol Phylogenet Evol 20:238–251.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Iriarte JA, Contreras LC, Jaksic FM, 1989. A long-term study of a small-mammal assemblage in the central Chilean matorral. J Mammal 70:79–87.[CrossRef]
Irschick DJ, Vitt LJ, Zani PA, Losos JB, 1997. A comparison of evolutionary radiations in mainland and Caribbean Anolis lizards. Ecology 78:2191–2203.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Jackson TP, 2000. Adaptation to living in an open arid environment: lessons from the burrow structure of the two southern African whistling rats, Paratomys brantsii and P. littledalei. J Arid Environ 46:345–355.
Jackson JE, Branch LC, Villarreal D, 1996. Lagostomus maximus. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 543:1–6.
Jaksic FM, 1986. Predation upon small mammals in shrublands and grasslands of southern South America: ecological correlates and presumable consequences. Rev Chil Hist Nat 59:209–221.
Jaksic FM, 1989. What do carnivorous predators cue in on: size or abundance of mammalian prey? A crucial test in California, Chile, and Spain. Rev Chil Hist Nat 62:237–249.
Jaksic FM, Greene HW, Yáñez JL, 1981. The guild structure of a community of predatory vertebrates in central Chile. Oecologia 49:21–28.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Jarvis JUM, O'Riain MJ, Bennett NC, Sherman PW, 1994. Mammalian eusociality: a family affair. Trends Ecol Evol 9:47–51.
Karels TJ, Boonstra R, 1999. The impact of predation on burrow use by Arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2117–2133.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kenagy GJ, Nespolo RF, Vásquez RA, Bozinovic F, 2002. Daily and seasonal limits of time and temperature to activity of degus. Rev Chil Hist Nat 75:567–581.
Kenward RE, 1978. Hawks and doves: factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. J Anim Ecol 47:449–460.
Kildaw SD, 1995. The effect of group size manipulations on the foraging behavior of black-tailed prairie dogs. Behav Ecol 6:353–358.
Kinlaw A, 1999. A review of burrowing by semi-fossorial vertebrates in arid environments. J Arid Environ 41:127–145.
Kleiman DG, 1974. Patterns of behaviour in hystricomorph rodents. Symp Zool Soc Lond 34:171–209.
Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O, 1991. Factors affecting foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72:2249–2260.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Kotler BP, Brown JS, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO II, 1988. The effects of morphology and body size on rates of owl predation on desert rodents. Oikos 53:145–152.
Kramer DL, Bonenfant M, 1997. Direction of predator approach and the decision to flee to a refuge. Anim Behav 54:289–295.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kraus C, Künkele J, Trillmich F, 2003. Spacing behaviour and its implications for the mating system of a precocial small mammal: an almost asocial cavy Cavia magna? Anim Behav 66:225–238.[CrossRef]
Kraus C, Rödel HG, 2004. Where have all the cavies gone? Causes and consequences of predation by the minor grison on a wild cavy population. Oikos 105:489–500.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Krause J, Godin JGJ, 1995. Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473.[CrossRef]
Krause J, Ruxton GD, 2002. Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krebs JR, Davies NB, 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Lacey EA, Ebensperger LA, in press. Social structure in Octodontid and Ctenomyid rodents. In: Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective (Wolff JO, Sherman PW, eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacher TE, 1981. The comparative social behavior of Kerodon rupestris and Galea spixii and the evolution of behavior in the Caviidae. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 17:1–71.
Lagos VO, Contreras LC, Meserve PL, Gutiérrez JR, Jaksic FM, 1995. Effects of predation risk on space use by small mammals: a field experiment with a neotropical rodent. Oikos 74:259–264.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lee PC, 1994. Social structure and evolution. In: Behaviour and evolution (Slater PJB, Halliday TR, eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 266–303.
Leite YLR, Patton JL, 2002. Evolution of South American spiny rats (Rodentia, Echimyidae): the star-phylogeny hypothesis revisited. Mol Phylogenet Evol 25:455–464.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Llanos AC, Crespo JA, 1952. Ecología de la vizcacha ("Lagostomus maximus maximus" Blainv.) en el nordeste de la provincia de Entre Ríos. Rev Investig Agríc (Argentina) 6:289–378.
Lomolino MV, 1985. Body size of mammals on islands: the island rule reexamined. Am Nat 125:310–316.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Longland WS, Jenkins SH, 1987. Sex and age affect vulnerability of desert rodents to owl predation. J Mammal 68:746–754.[CrossRef]
Longland WS, Price MV, 1991. Direct observations of owls and heteromyid rodents: can predation risk explain microhabitat use? Ecology 72:2261–2273.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Losos JB, 1999. Uncertainty in the reconstruction of ancestral character states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Anim Behav 58:1319–1324.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Macdonald DW, 1981. Dwindling resources and the social behaviour of capybaras, (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). J Zool Lond 194:371–391.
MacHutchon AG, Harestad AS, 1990. Vigilance behaviour and use of rocks by Columbian ground squirrels. Can J Zool 68:1428–1432.[CrossRef]
Maddison WP, Maddison DR, 2005. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 1.06. http://mesquiteproject.org.
Manaf P, Morato S, Spinelli de Oliveira E, 2003. Profile of wild Neotropical spiny rats (Trinomys, Echimyidae) in two behavioral tests. Physiol Behav 79:129–133.[CrossRef][Medline]
Manaf P, Spinelli de Oliveira E, 2000. Behavioral repertoire of the spiny rat Proechimys (Trinomys) yonenagae (Rodentia: Echimyidae) in captivity. Rev Etol 2:3–15.
Mann G, 1978. Los pequeños mamíferos de Chile: marsupiales, quirópteros, edentados y roedores. Gallana Zool (Chile) 40:1–342.
Mares MA, Braun JK, Channell R, 1997. Ecological observations on the octodontid rodent, Tympanoctomys barrerae, in Argentina. Southwest Nat 42:488–504.
Mares MA, Braun JK, Gettinger D, 1989a. Observations on the distribution and ecology of the mammals of the Cerrado grasslands of central Brazil. Ann Carnegie Mus 58:1–60.
Mares MA, Ojeda RA, 1982. Patterns of diversity and adaptation in South American hystricognath rodents. Pymatuning Lab Ecol Spec Publ Ser 6:393–431.
Mares MA, Ojeda RA, Bárquez RM, 1989b. Guide to the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Mares MA, Ojeda RA, Kosco MP, 1981. Observations on the distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. Ann Carnegie Mus 50:151–206.
Marquet PA, Contreras LC, Silva S, Torres-Mura JC, Bozinovic F, 1993. Natural history of Microcavia niata in the high Andean zone of northern Chile. J Mammal 74:136–140.[CrossRef]
Martins EP, 2003. COMPARE. Version 4.5. Bloomington: Department of Biology, Indiana University.
Martins EP, Hansen TF, 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior (Martins EP, ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 22–75.
McKenna MC, Bell SK, 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level. New York: Columbia University Press.
Midford PE, Garland TJ, Maddison WP, 2005. PDAP package of Mesquite. Version 1.07. http://mesquiteproject.org.
Miller S, Rottmann J, 1976. Guía para el reconociminento de mamíferos chilenos. Santiago: Editora Nacional Gabriela Mistral.
Mohlis C, 1983. Información preliminar sobre la conservación y manejo de la chinchilla silvestre en Chile. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Boletín Técnico (Chile) 3:1–41.
Mones A, Ojasti J, 1986. Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 264:1–7.
Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E, 1998. Does mobility or sex of voles affect risk of predation by mammalian predators? Ecology 79:226–232.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Nowak RM, 1999. Walker's mammals of the world. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Pagel MD, 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J Theor Biol 156:431–442.[CrossRef]
Parera A, 2002. Los mamíferos de la Argentina y la región austral de Sudamérica. Buenos Aires: Editorial El Ateneo.
Parrish JK, Hamner WM, Prewitt CT, 1997. Introduction—from individuals to aggregations: unifying properties, global framework, and the holy grails of congregation. In: Animal groups in three dimensions (Parrish JK, Hamner WM, eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1–13.
Pearson OP, 1948. Life history of mountain viscachas in Peru. J Mammal 29:345–374.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Pérez EM, 1992. Agouti paca. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 404:1–7.
Pessôa LM, Reis SF, 1996. Proechimys iheringi. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 536:1–4.
Pierce BM, Longland WS, Jenkins SH, 1992. Rattlesnake predation on desert rodents: microhabitat and species-specific effects on risk. J Mammal 73:859–865.[CrossRef]
Powell RA, Fried JJ, 1992. Helping by juvenile pine voles (Microtus pinetorum), growth and survival of younger siblings, and the evolution of pine vole sociality. Behav Ecol 3:325–333.
Pulliam HR, 1973. On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Purvis A, 1995. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 348:405–421.[Web of Science][Medline]
Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM, 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1947–1952.[Medline]
Redford KH, Eisenberg JF, 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics: the southern cone. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reeve J, Abouheif E, 2003. Phylogenetic Independence 2.0. Montreal: Department of Biology, McGill University.
Reeve HK, Sherman PW, 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Q Rev Biol 68:1–32.[CrossRef]
Reichman OJ, Smith SC, 1987. Burrows and burrowing behavior by mammals. Curr Mamm 2:197–244.
Reid FA, 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and southeast Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rodríguez JA, 1988. Caracterización de Chinchilla lanigera silvestre y de su ecosistema natural. (Animal Production MS thesis). Santiago: Universidad Católica de Chile.
Rolland C, Danchin E, de Fraipont M, 1998. The evolution of coloniality in birds in relation to food, habitat, predation, and life history traits: a comparative analysis. Am Nat 151:514–529.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rood JP, 1970. Ecology and social behavior of the desert cavy (Microcavia australis). Am Midl Nat 83:415–454.[CrossRef]
Rood JP, 1972. Ecological and behavioural comparisons of three genera of Argentine cavies. Anim Behav Monogr 5:1–83.
Rowe DL, Honeycutt RL, 2002. Phylogenetic relationships, ecological correlates, and molecular evolution within the Cavioidea (Mammalia, Rodentia). Mol Biol Evol 19:263–277.
Shelley EL, Blumstein DT, 2005. The evolution of vocal alarm communication in rodents. Behav Ecol 16:169–177.
Silva M, Downing JA, 1995. CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Smith FA, 1992. Evolution of body size among woodrats from Baja California, Mexico. Funct Ecol 6:265–273.[CrossRef]
Smythe N, 1978. The natural history of the Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata). Smithson Contrib Zool 257:1–52.
Streilein KE, 1982. Ecology of small mammals in the semiarid Brazilian Caatinga. I. Climate and faunal composition. Ann Carnegie Mus 51:79–107.
Stuart-Fox DM, Ord TJ, 2004. Sexual selection, natural selection and the evolution of dimorphic coloration and ornamentation in agamid lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2249–2255.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sundell J, Eccard JA, Tiilikainen R, Ylönen H, 2003. Predation rate, prey preference and predator switching: experiments on voles and weasels. Oikos 101:615–623.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Taber AB, Macdonald DW, 1992. Spatial organization and monogamy in the mara Dolichotis patagonum. J Zool Lond 227:417–438.
Terborgh J, Janson CH, 1986. The socioecology of primate groups. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:111–135.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Topping MG, Millar JS, Goddard JA, 1999. The effects of moonlight on nocturnal activity in bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea). Can J Zool 77:480–485.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Trejo A, Guthmann N, 2003. Owl predation on size and sex classes of rodents: activity and microhabitat use of prey. J Mammal 84:652–658.[CrossRef]
Uetz GW, Boyle J, Hieber CS, Wilcox S, 2002. Antipredator benefits of group living in colonial web-building spiders: the "early warning effect". Anim Behav 63:445–452.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Van Schaik CP, 1983. Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behaviour 87:120–144.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Van Vuren D, 1996. Ectoparasites, fitness, and social behaviour of yellow-bellied marmots. Ethology 102:686–694.[Web of Science]
Vásquez RA, Ebensperger LA, Bozinovic F, 2002. The effect of microhabitat on running velocity, intermittent locomotion, and vigilance in a diurnal rodent. Behav Ecol 13:182–187.
Veron G, Colyn M, Dunham AE, Taylor P, Gaubert P, 2004. Molecular systematics and origin of sociality in mongooses (Herpestidae, Carnivora). Mol Phylogenet Evol 30:582–598.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vucetich MG, Verzi DH, Hartenberger JL, 1999. Review and analysis of the radiation of the South American Hystricognathi (Mammalia, Rodentia). Paleontology 329:763–769.
Waser PM, 1988. Resources, philopatry, and social interactions among mammals. In: The ecology of social behavior (Slobodchikoff CN, ed). San Diego: Academic Press; 109–130.
Watt PJ, Chapman R, 1998. Whirligig beetle aggregations: what are the costs and the benefits? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:179–184.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Watt PJ, Nottingham SF, Young S, 1997. Toad tadpole aggregation behaviour: evidence for a predator avoidance function. Anim Behav 54:865–872.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
White TG, Alberico MS, 1992. Dinomys branickii. Am Soc Mammal Mammal Spec 410:1–5.
Wolff JO, Guthrie RD, 1985. Why are aquatic small mammals so large? Oikos 45:365–373.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Woods CA, 1993. Suborder Hystricognathi. In: Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference (Wilson DE, Reeder DM, eds). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press; 771–806.
Yáñez J, 1976. Eco-etología de Octodon degus (BS thesis). Santiago: Universidad de Chile.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D.T Blumstein and A.P Moller Is sociality associated with high longevity in North American birds? Biol Lett, April 23, 2008; 4(2): 146 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||