The placement, recovery, and loss of scatter hoards by eastern chipmunks,Tamias striatus

Although eastern chipmunks typically larder hoard food in theirburrows, some scatter hoarding occurs, especially by newly emergedjuveniles and by females with young. To examine patterns ofscatter hoard placement and their adaptive significance, weused standard food provisioning tests followed by continuousmonitoring to determine the longevity and fate of scatter hoards.Longevity of scatter hoards was low (median 74 min) and pilferagewas high (46%). Chipmunks placed scatter hoards away from thepatch, closer to their burrow and within the defended area ofprimary use. Scatter hoard placement was affected by the numberof competitors at the patch. However, juveniles and femaleswith young differed slightly in their responses. competitorsthat approached scatteihoards were sometimes chased away bythe scatter hoard's owner, and the scatter hoard was moved toanother location by the owner. Females with young recoveredtheir largest scatter hoards first, but there was little additionalpattern in scatter hoard recovery. An experiment using simulatedscatter hoards showed that scatter hoards farther from a patchof food lasted longer and that disturbing and marking scatterhoards reduced their longevity. These observations indicate:(1) that scatter hoard placement is more related to avoidingpilferage of completed caches than to rapidly sequestering fooditems from an ephemeral patch and (2) that optimal cache distributionmay be affected by the cache-defense ability of individuals,by the relationship between competitor density and cache securitynear the patch, and by the territorial behavior of neighboringconspecifics.     

The influence of environmental conditions on cache recovery and cache pilferage by yellow pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus)

I conducted a field experiment in 10 x 10 m enclosures to explorehow seed and soil moisture levels influence the ability ofknowledgeable and naive rodents to find natural caches of Jeffreypine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds. Subjects were yellow pine chipmunks(Tamias amoenus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) searchingfor caches that they had made, caches made by other individualsof the same species, or caches made by individuals of the otherspecies. Subjects that made caches (knowledgeable subjects)relied on spatial memory to find many of their own caches duringrecovery sessions, and their ability to locate caches was notaffected by water content of seeds or soil. Naive subjectsfound few caches under dry conditions, but under wet conditions,they located as many caches as did the rodents that made them.Naive subjects apparently relied on olfaction to find caches,a sensory modality that works more effectively under moist conditions.Subjects had as much success foraging for caches made by membersof their own species as for caches made by the other species.I present a hypothesis that predicts how foragers could modifypredominately memory-based search to predominately olfactory-basedsearch as the weather changes from dry to wet. When foragersrely on spatial memory, those foragers find only their owncaches, but when they can also use olfaction, they pilfer cachesmade by other individuals. Consequently, the nature of competitiveinteractions among members of the seed-caching guild may changeas the weather changes.     

啮齿动物对不同大小和种皮特征种子的取食和搬运

在宁夏六盘山区的辽东栎灌丛,以不同大小的辽东栎种子、野李和华山松种子为材料,研究了种子大小和种皮特征对啮齿动物取食和搬运行为的影响.结果表明:辽东栎小种子和华山松种子的就地取食率均显著高于辽东栎大种子和野李种子;具有厚而坚硬种皮(内果皮)的野李种子被啮齿动物搬运后的取食率和贮藏率均最高.辽东栎大种子被啮齿动物搬运后取食的距离最大(3.10 m),被搬运后贮藏的距离(6.48 m)显著大于其他类型种子.除野李种子外,其他3种类型种子的单个种子取食点都在80％以上,所有种子的单个种子贮藏点都在90％以上,含2个以上种子的取食点和贮藏点较少.较高比例的华山松种子在灌丛基部和洞穴以外的其他环境被取食,其他3种类型种子被啮齿动物搬运后主要集中在灌丛基部和洞穴中取食;种皮(内果皮)厚而坚硬的种子以土壤埋藏方式贮藏的比例偏高.     

种子特征和结实量对啮齿动物取食和扩散种子行为的影响

为了深入了解啮齿动物在不同种子丰富度条件下对不同大小和单宁含量种子的觅食行为策略及其与植物种群更新的关系,在宁夏六盘山区的华北落叶松人工林,研究了不同大小和单宁含量[0%Tannin(T)、2%T、8%T和15%T]的人工种子在模拟结实小年和结实大年对啮齿动物取食和扩散行为的影响.结果表明: 啮齿动物消耗种子速度在结实小年更快,结实大年的种子消耗速度相对缓慢. 种子就地取食率(ISPR)在不同结实年份间无显著差异,扩散后取食率(PRAD)在结实小年显著高于结实大年,但前者的扩散后贮藏率(HRAD)显著低于后者;种子扩散后的取食距离(PDAD)和贮藏距离(HDAD)在结实小年均显著大于结实大年.在结实小年,大种子的PDAD和HDAD均大于小种子,前者在不同大小种子间均差异显著,而后者仅在2%T和15%T的不同大小种子间差异显著;在结实大年,除0%T外的其他单宁含量种子的PDAD和HDAD在不同大小种子间均差异显著.ISPR在中等单宁含量种子最大,高单宁含量种子最小;PRAD分别在结实小年的高单宁含量种子和结实大年的无单宁种子最大;不论在结实大年还是结实小年,HRAD均在高单宁含量种子最大,中等单宁含量种子最小.这说明结实大年可延缓啮齿动物对种子的消耗速率,提高种子的HRAD,但种子扩散距离减小;啮齿动物在结实大年和小年均表现出对大种子的扩散偏好,且大种子被扩散的距离更远;啮齿动物在不同结实年份均偏好于就地取食中等单宁含量种子,而扩散高单宁含量种子.     

How plants manipulate the scatter-hoarding behaviour of seed-dispersing animals

Some plants that are dispersed by scatter-hoarding animals appear to have evolved the ability to manipulate the behaviour of those animals to increase the likelihood that seeds and nuts will be stored and that a portion of those items will not be recovered. Plants have achieved this in at least four ways. First, by producing large, nutritious seeds and nuts that are attractive to animals and that stimulate hoarding behaviour. Second, by imposing handling costs that cause animals to hoard rather than to eat items immediately. These handling costs can take one of two forms: physical barriers (e.g. hard seed coats) that take time to remove and secondary chemicals (e.g. tannins) that impose metabolic costs. Third, by masting, where a population of plants synchronizes reproductive effort, producing large nut crops at intervals of several years. Mast crops not only satiate seed predators, but also increase the amount of seed dispersal because scatter-hoarding animals are not easily satiated during caching (causing animals to store more food than they can consume) but are satiated during cache recovery. And fourth, by producing seeds that do not emit strong odours so that buried seeds are less likely to be discovered. These, and perhaps other, traits have increased the relative success of plant species with seeds dispersed by scatter-hoarding animals.     

The effects of cache loss on choice of cache sites in black-capped chickadees

Food-storing birds lose a great deal of their stored food toother animals. We examined whether blackcapped chickadees (Parusairicapillus) modify their choice of cache sites using informationthat predicts cache loss. In experiment 1, birds learned toavoid caching at spatial locations where cache loss had previouslyoccurred, but they did not avoid caching near local color cuesthat predicted cache loss. Birds did not modify their generaluse of space in the aviary. Birds also learned to reduce searchingfor caches where spatial location predicted cache loss. Experiment2 confirmed the birds’ ability to discriminate among thespatial locations and the local color cues used in experiment1. In experiment 3, learning a food-rewarded approach to potentialcache sites occurred without any change in the choice of sitesfor caching. We discuss how chickadees selectively associatethe choice of cache site with its consequences, even over delaysof several hours between caching and cache recovery.     

Reciprocal pilferage and the evolution of food-hoarding behavior

Current theories of food-hoarding behavior maintain that hoardingcan be adaptive if a hoarder is more likely than any other animalto retrieve its own caches. A survey of the literature indicatedthat the hoarder often has a recovery advantage when searchingfor items it has stored, but levels of cache pilferage are oftenso high (2–30% per day) that at least for some long-termfood hoarders, the caching animal is unlikely to recover a significantamount of its stored food. Except in a few cases (acorn woodpeckersand beavers), kin selection cannot explain the high levels ofpilferage observed. We suggest that some small solitary animalswith overlapping home ranges (e.g., most rodents, chickadees,and tits) are able to tolerate high levels of cache pilferage.Pilferage is not as damaging to these animals as it might otherwisebe because many interspecific and all intraspecific cache pilferersalso cache food. These or similar food caches can be pilferedlater by the original food hoarder. In other words, pilferingin these species is often reciprocal, and because it is reciprocal,it can be tolerated. We argue that caching systems based onreciprocal pilfering can be stable and are not necessarily susceptibleto "cheaters," animals that pilfer food but do not scatter hoardfood themselves, and we introduce a model of food hoarding tosupport this argument. These food-caching systems based on reciprocalpilfering resemble cooperative behavior, but the behavior isactually driven by the selfish interests of individuals. Thistheory of scatter-hoarding behavior based on reciprocity hasimportant implications for the ways that food-hoarding animalsinteract with inter- and intraspecific competitors.     

秦岭南北坡森林鼠类对板栗和锐齿栎种子扩散的影响

森林鼠类的种子贮藏行为对植物的扩散及更新会产生积极的影响。2012和2013年秋季,分别在秦岭北坡的周至国家级自然保护区和南坡的佛坪国家级自然保护区内,调查了森林鼠类对板栗(Castanea mollissima)和锐齿栎(Quercus aliena)种子的取食和扩散差异。结果显示:1)秦岭南北坡的环境因素,特别是植被因素,对鼠类扩散板栗和锐齿栎种子具有重要的影响。南坡较为丰富的壳斗科植被种类,导致2种种子在南坡存留时间均长于北坡,而北坡的扩散取食和丢失率均高于南坡。2)种子特征影响鼠类的取食或贮藏偏好。由于较高的蛋白、脂肪等营养含量,鼠类更喜好取食或搬运贮藏板栗种子。然而,低营养但高丹宁含量的锐齿栎种子仍然被鼠类大量贮藏。3)2种种子在南北坡的扩散历程在两个年份间有很大差异,在食物相对匮乏的年份(2012年),种子被扩散的速度更快且丢失的比率更高。这种差异反映了种子大小年现象对森林鼠类取食和贮藏策略的影响。4)无论在秦岭南坡还是北坡,营养价值含量(如蛋白和脂肪)较高的板栗种子的取食和贮藏距离都明显大于营养价值含量较低的锐齿栎种子,这与最优贮藏空间分布模型的预测一致。     

Seasonal hippocampal plasticity in food-storing birds

Both food-storing behaviour and the hippocampus change annually in food-storing birds. Food storing increases substantially in autumn and winter in chickadees and tits, jays and nutcrackers and nuthatches. The total size of the chickadee hippocampus increases in autumn and winter as does the rate of hippocampal neurogenesis. The hippocampus is necessary for accurate cache retrieval in food-storing birds and is much larger in food-storing birds than in non-storing passerines. It therefore seems probable that seasonal change in caching and seasonal change in the hippocampus are causally related. The peak in recruitment of new neurons into the hippocampus occurs before birds have completed food storing and cache retrieval for the year and may therefore be associated with spacing caches, encoding the spatial locations of caches, or creating a neuronal architecture involved in the recollection of cache sites. The factors controlling hippocampal plasticity in food-storing birds are not well understood. Photoperiodic manipulations that produce change in food-storing behaviour have no effect on either hippocampal size or neuronal recruitment. Available evidence suggests that changes in hippocampal size and neurogenesis may be a consequence of the behavioural and cognitive involvement of the hippocampus in storing and retrieving food.