Different antipredator responses by Microcavia australis (Rodentia, Hystricognate, Caviidae) under predation risk.

TARABORELLI, P. A; MORENO, P.; SRUR, A.; SANDOBAL, A.J.; MARTINEZ, M.G.; GIANNONI, S.

BEHAVIOUR

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS

Año: 2008 vol. 145 p. 829 - 842

0005-7959

The antipredator response of rodents may depend on the species of predator and the structure of the vegetation. To investigate these effects, we compared the antipredator response of Microcavia australis to two predator models. We used two populations occurring at sites of the Monte desert that differ in plant structure and availability, and in predation risk. At Ñacuñán plant cover is 54.3%, the major risk of predation is from raptors. At El Leoncito plant cover is 21.9%, the predation risk is similar by raptors and carnivores. In addition we investigated whether olfactory cues for different predators may elicit different antipredator responses in absence of visual cues. This was done by presenting feces of two predators and controls in an experimental set-up. The exposed individuals reduced their activity in response to feces of both predators and not in response to the control, but they did not respond in the same way to each predator (their response to each predator was not the same). The results show that M. australis recognizes different predators through both sight and smell, and that the response may be influenced by vegetation structure.to two predator models. We used two populations occurring at sites of the Monte desert that differ in plant structure and availability, and in predation risk. At Ñacuñán plant cover is 54.3%, the major risk of predation is from raptors. At El Leoncito plant cover is 21.9%, the predation risk is similar by raptors and carnivores. In addition we investigated whether olfactory cues for different predators may elicit different antipredator responses in absence of visual cues. This was done by presenting feces of two predators and controls in an experimental set-up. The exposed individuals reduced their activity in response to feces of both predators and not in response to the control, but they did not respond in the same way to each predator (their response to each predator was not the same). The results show that M. australis recognizes different predators through both sight and smell, and that the response may be influenced by vegetation structure.M. australis recognizes different predators through both sight and smell, and that the response may be influenced by vegetation structure.