Различные типы маркировочного поведения, наблюдаемые в природе в сезон размножения у обыкновенного хомяка (Cricetus cricetus, cricetidae, rodentia)

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Открытый доступ Открытый доступ
Доступ закрыт Доступ предоставлен
Доступ закрыт Только для подписчиков

Аннотация

С помощью фотоловушек и ручных видеокамер регистрировали маркировочное поведение обыкновенного хомяка (Cricetus cricetus) в Ботаническом саду им. Н.И. Багрова (Симферополь, Крым). Описаны разнообразные формы маркировки: с помощью боковых желёз (в частности, циркулеподобные движения в траве и потирания боковыми железами о камень), маркировка средне-брюшной железой и др. Разнообразие форм маркировочного поведения обыкновенного хомяка на разном субстрате может способствовать более эффективному использованию пахучих меток в поддержании социальной структуры вида, что особенно важно при высокой плотности популяций в условиях городской среды.

Полный текст

Доступ закрыт

Об авторах

В. П. Куприянов

Институт проблем экологии и эволюции имени А.Н. Северцова РАН

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: meahn@mail.ru
Россия, Ленинский пр., 33, Москва, 119071

А. В. Суров

Институт проблем экологии и эволюции имени А.Н. Северцова РАН

Email: surov@sevin.ru
Россия, Ленинский пр., 33, Москва, 119071

Список литературы

  1. Arakawa H., Blanchard D.C., Arakawa K., Dunlap C., Blanchard R.J., 2008. Scent marking behavior as an odorant communication in mice // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. V. 32. № 7. P. 1236–1248.
  2. Banaszek A., Bogomolov P., Feoktistova N., La Haye M.J.J., Monecke S., Reiners T.E., Rusin M., Surov A., Weinhold U., Ziomek J., 2020. Cricetus cricetus // The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. P. 1–15. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/5529/111875852
  3. Ben-David M., Bowyer R.T., Duffy L.K., Roby D.D., Schell D.M., 1998. Social behavior and ecosystem processes: river otter latrines and nutrient dynamics of terrestrial vegetation // Ecology. V. 79. № 7. P. 2567– 2571.
  4. Blundell G.M., Ben-David M., Bowyer R.T., 2002. Sociality in river otters: cooperative foraging or reproductive strategies? // Behavioral Ecology. V. 13. № 1. P. 134–141.
  5. Blundell G.M., Ben‐David M., Groves P., Bowyer R.T., Geffen E., 2002a. Characteristics of sex‐biased dispersal and gene flow in coastal river otters: implications for natural recolonization of extirpated populations // Molecular Ecology. V. 11. № 3. P. 289–303.
  6. Bowyer R.T., Testa J.W., Faro J.B., 1995. Habitat selection and home ranges of river otters in a marine environment: effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill // Journal of Mammalogy. V. 76. № 1. P. 1–11.
  7. Čanády A., 2013. New site of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in the urban environment of Košice city (Slovakia) // Zoology and Ecology. V. 23. № 1. P. 61–65.
  8. Chernova O.F., Khatsaeva R.M., Kupriyanov V.P., Feoktistova N.Y., Surov A.V., 2022. Structural Features of the Skin, Hair, and Specific Skin Glands of the Common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus, Cricetidae, Rodentia) // Biology Bulletin. V. 9. № 9. P. 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359022090096
  9. Doty R.L., 2010. The great pheromone myth. The John Hopkins University Press. 306 p.
  10. Eibl‐Eibesfeldt I., 1953. Zur ethologie des Hamsters (Cricetus cricetus L.) // Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. V. 10. № 2. P. 204–254.
  11. Eichert U., Ziomek J., Melosik I., 2017. The role of olfactory communications in modification of intra-specific aggression in the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) // 24th Annual Meeting of the International Hamster Workgroup, Uglich. P. 31–36.
  12. Estes R.D., Cumming D.H., Hearn G.W., 1982. New facial glands in domestic pig and warthog // Journal of Mammalogy. V. 3. № 4. P. 618–624.
  13. Feoktistova N.Y., Surov A.V., Tovpinetz N.N., Kropotki- na M.V., Bogomolov P.L., Siutz C., Haberl W., Hoffmann I.E., 2013. The common hamster as a synurbist: a history of settlement in European cities // Zoologica Poloniae. V. 58. № 3–4. P. 116.
  14. Ferkin M.H., Lee D.N., Leonard S.T., 2004. The reproductive state of female voles affects their scent mar- king behavior and the responses of male conspecifics to such marks // Ethology. V. 110. № 4. P. 257–272.
  15. Flamand A., Rebout N., Bordes C., Guinnefollau L., Berges M., Ajak F., Siutz C., Millesi E., Weber Odile P., 2019. A study on the behaviour of a population of common hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) in urban environment // PLoS One. V. 14. № 1. e0225347 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225347
  16. Fleming A.S., Tambosso L., 1980. Hormonal and sensory control of scent marking in the desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida lepida) // Journal of Comparative and Phy- siological Psychology. V. 94. № 3. P. 564–578.
  17. Gosling L.M., Roberts S.C., 2001. Scent marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates // Advances in Study of Behavior. V. 30. P. 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454 (01)80007-3
  18. Gromov V.S., 2015. Scent marking in gerbils and its possible functions // Russian J. Theriol. V. 14. № 1. P. 113–126.
  19. Halpin Z.T., 1986. Individual odors among mammals: origins and functions // Advances in the Study of Behavior. V. 16. P. 39–70.
  20. Huck U.W., Lisk R.D., Gore A.C., 1985. Scent marking and mate choice in the golden hamster // Physiology & behavior. V. 35. № 3. P. 389–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(85)90314-2
  21. Johnston R.E., 1983. Chemical signals and reproductive behavior // Pheromones and reproduction in mammals. V. 1. P. 3–38.
  22. Johnston R.E., 2003. Chemical communication in rodents: from pheromones to individual recognition // Journal of Mammalogy. V. 84. № 4. P. 1141–1162.
  23. Johnston R.E., Derzie A., Chiang G., Jernigan P., Lee H.C., 1993. Individual scent signatures in golden hamsters: evidence for specialization of function // Animal Behaviour. V. 45. № 6. P. 1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1132
  24. Katzman E.A., Zaytseva E.A., Feoktistova N.Yu., Tovpinetz N.N., Bogomolov P.L., Potashnikova E.V., Surov A.V., 2018. Seasonal Changes in Burrowing of the Common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus L., 1758) (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in the city // Povolzhskiy Journal of Ecology. V. 3. P. 251–258.
  25. Kennedy B.W., Grivetti L.E., 1980. Toxic quail: A culturalecological investigation of coturnism // Ecology of Food and Nutrition. V. 9. № 1. P. 15–41.
  26. Kumar S., Prakash I., 1983. Seasonal variation in the dimension of scent-marking gland of three desert rodents and its possible relationship with their reproductive performance // Proceedings: Animal Sciences. V. 92. P. 299–304.
  27. Lipkow J., 1954. Über das Seitenorgan des Goldhamsters (Mesocricetus auratus auratus Waterh) // Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere. V. 42. № 4. P. 333–372.
  28. Müller-Schwarze D., Heckman S., 1980. The social role of scent marking in beaver (Castor canadensis) // Journal of Chemical Ecology. V. 6. P. 81–95.
  29. Murphy M.R., 1980. Sexual preferences of male hamsters: importance of preweaning and adult experience, vaginal secretion, and olfactory or vomeronasal sensation // Behavioral and Neural Biology. V. 30. № 3. P. 323–340.
  30. Nie Y., Swaisgood R.R., Zhang Z., Hu Y., Ma Y., Wei F., 2012. Giant panda scent-marking strategies in the wild: role of season, sex and marking surface // Ani- mal Behaviour. V. 84. № 1. P. 39–44.
  31. Reasner D.S., Johnston R.E., 1987. Scent marking by male dwarf hamsters (Phodopus sungorus campbelli) in response to conspecific odors // Behavioral and Neural Biology. V. 48. № 1. P. 43–48.
  32. Reznik-Schüller H., Reznik G., Mohr U., 1974. The European hamster (Cricetus cricetus L.) as an experimental animal: breeding methods and observations of their behaviour in the laboratory // Zeitschrift fur Versuchstierkunde. V. 16. № 1. P. 48–58.
  33. Roberts S.C., 2007. Scent marking // Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. P. 255–266.
  34. Schaffer J., 1940. Die Hautdrüsenorgane der Säugetiere. Berlin: Urban, Schwarzenberg. 464 s.
  35. Schaller G.B., 1985. Giant pandas of Wolong. University of Chicago press. 298 p.
  36. Sokolov V.E., Vasilieva N.Y., 1993. Djungarian hamsters (Phodopus campbelli) behavior in nature supports the “Theory of Signaling Biological Fields” // Doklady Rossiyskoi Academii Nauk. V. 332. P. 667–670. (In Russ.)
  37. Sokolov V.E., Chernova O.F., 2001. Kozhnye zhelezy mlekopitayushchikh (Mammal Skin Glands). Moscow: GEOS. 648 p.
  38. Soso S.B., Koziel J.A., Johnson A., Lee Y.J., Fairbanks W.S., 2014. Analytical methods for chemical and sensory characterization of scent-markings in large wild mammals: a review // Sensors. V. 14. № 3. P. 4428–4465.
  39. Staples L.G., McGregor I.S., Apfelbach R., Hunt G.E., 2008. Cat odor, but not trimethylthiazoline (fox odor), activates accessory olfactory and defense-related brain regions in rats // Neuroscience. V. 151. № 4. P. 937–947.
  40. Surov A., Banaszek A., Bogomolov P., Feoktistova N., Monecke S., 2016. Dramatic global decrease in the range and reproduction rate of the European hamster Cricetus cricetus // Endangered species research. V. 31. P. 119–145. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00749
  41. Surov A.V., Zaytseva E.A., Kuptsov A.V., Katzman E.A., Bogomolov P.L., Sayan A.S., Potashnikova E.V., Tovpi- netz N.N., Kuznetsova E.V., Tsellarius A.Y., Feoktistova N.Y., 2019. Circle of life: the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) adaptations to the urban environment // Integr. Zool. V. 14. № 4. P. 383–395.
  42. Surov A.V., Karmanova T.N., Zaitseva E.A., Katsman E.A., Feoktistova N.Y., 2023. From an Agrophile to a Synurbist: Settlement of the Common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus) into an Urban Environment // Biology Bulletin. V. 50. № 9. P. 2517–2527.
  43. Tissier M.L., Marchandeau S., Habold C., Handrich Y., Eidenschenck J., Kourkgy C., 2019. Weeds as a pre- dominant food source: a review of the diet of common hamsters Cricetus cricetus in farmlands and urban habitats // Mammal Review. V. 49. № 2. P. 152–170.
  44. Vetter J., 2004. Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum L.) // Food and Chemical Toxicology. V. 42. № 9. P. 1373–1382.
  45. Vohralik V., 1974. Biology of the reproduction of the common hamster, Cricetus cricetus (L.) // Vestn. Cesk. Spol. Zool. V. 38. P. 228−240.
  46. Vrtiš V., 1930. Glandular organ on the flanks of the hamster, Cricetus cricetus (L.) // Biologické Spisy. Brünn: Vysoká Skola veterinary. V. 9. P. 13–14. (In Czech)
  47. Vrtiš V., 1930a. Über die sogenannten Seit drüsen der Wasserratte (Arvicola) und des Hamsters (Cricetus) // Arch. Zool. Ital. V. 16. P. 790–796.
  48. Wolff J.O., 2003. Laboratory studies with rodents: facts or artifacts? // Bioscience. V. 53. № 4. P. 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0421: LSWRFO]2.0.CO;2
  49. Wynne-Edwards K.E., Surov A.V., Telitzina A.Y., 1992. Field studies of chemical signalling: direct observations of dwarf hamsters (Phodopus) in Soviet Asia // Chemical Signals in Vertebrates. V. 6. P. 485–491.
  50. Ziomek J., 2011. The common hamster Cricetus cricetus (L.) in the mosaic of arable fields of southern Poland. Space use, activity and behavioural patterns. [In Polish with English summary] Wydz. Biol. UAM w Poznaniu, BiologicaSilesiae, Wrocław.
  51. Ziomek J., Zgrabczyńska E., Poradzisz A., 2009. The behaviour of the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) under zoo conditions // Der Zoologische Garten. V. 78. № 4. P. 221–231.
  52. Zuri I., Gazit I., Terkel J., 1997. Effect of scent marking in delaying territorial invasion in the blind mole-rat Spalax ehrenbergi // Behaviour. V. 134. № 11–12. P. 867–880.

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы
Действие
1. JATS XML
Скачать
2. Видео 1
Скачать (13MB)
Метаданные
3. Видео 2
Скачать (10MB)
Метаданные
4. Видео 3
Скачать (88MB)
Метаданные
5. Видео 4
Скачать (71MB)
Метаданные
6. Видео 5
Скачать (32MB)
Метаданные
7. Видео 6
Скачать (46MB)
Метаданные

© Российская академия наук, 2024