Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 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 (48)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Korpimaki, E.
Right arrow Articles by Hakkarainen, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Korpimaki, E.
Right arrow Articles by Hakkarainen, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Microhabitat use and behavior of voles under weasel and raptor predation risk: predator facilitation?

Erkki Korpimaki, Vesa Koivunen and Hani Hakkarainen

Laboratory of Ecological Zoology, Department of Biology, University of Turku, FIN-20500 Turku, Finland Department of Psychology, University of Durban, Durban, South Africa

ABSTRACT

An example of predator facilitation is that a microhabitat shift in a prey species induced by one predator increases the probability of the prey falling victim to other predators. Least weasels (Mustela nivalis) hunt in dense plant cover, whereas kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) hunt in habitats with sparse plant cover. Field voles (Microtus agrestis), the main food of weasels and kestrels, prefer open country with a high grass layer. We simulated a multipredator environment in an aviary (3.0 x 4.8 x 2.2 m) to find out whether predator facilitation plays a role in the interactions between voles, small mustelids, and raptors. In each replicate, we placed a field vole in a pen including sides of high and low grass layers (cover and open). In a predator-free situation, voles preferred cover but shifted to open when a weasel was introduced to cover. In the presence of a kestrel, voles occupied cover and decreased their mobility. In the presence of a weasel plus a kestrel, voles behaved as under the kestrel risk alone. Therefore, in these aviary circumstances, voles perceived the kestrel risk as greater than the weasel risk. Predator facilitation in the assemblage of predators subsisting on rodent prey may contribute to the crash of the four-year vole cycle: microhabitat shift due to an avoidance of weasel jaws may drive voles to raptor talons.

Key words: antipredatory behavior, field vole, four-year vole cycle, kestrel, least weasel, microhabitat shift, predator facilitation.


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
J. O. Wolff
Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: a field-laboratory validation
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 286 - 289.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
R. A. Vasquez, L. A. Ebensperger, and F. Bozinovic
The influence of habitat on travel speed, intermittent locomotion, and vigilance in a diurnal rodent
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2002; 13(2): 182 - 187.
[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.