Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Territorial Behavior Characteristics in Gerbils

Bibliographic Data

ID13659652
AuthorsDavid J Rothenberg (0000-0001-6094-372X, Rochester Institute of Technology, corresponding author), David Rothenberg (Rochester Institute of Technology)
Year1974
Volume34
Issue3
Pages810-810
Publication date1974-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychological Reports (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-2941 • E-ISSN: 1558-691X
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2466/pr0.1974.34.3.810
OpenAlexW2323908387
LanguageEN
Citations received1

This exploratory study was to understand the inborn territorial traits of gerbils. Employing Keeton's ( 1 ) definition, a territory was defined as an area defended by one member of a species against intrusion by other members. Because gerbils continue to exhibit wild behavior in the laboratory, two females, A and B, who were totally unfamiliar with one another and differentiated by a stain of a green food coloring on gerbil A's head, were selected to participate in three sessions. Gerbils were placed in plastic holding cages between sessions. The experimental cage was thoroughly washed and wood chips were placed on the floor. Food and water were provided in the experimental cage. In Session I, Gerbil A's oil, secreted from the sebaceous glands on her chest, was used as the marker for ownership of a territory. With a sterile cotton swab, some of her marker oils were transferred to the walls and wood chips of a man-made nest which was constructed by pushing the chips aside to make a depression. In the same cage, another nest was constructed, but this was not marked with oil and served as a control. Gerbil A was placed in the cage. At first she exhibited random escape-behavior patterns, i.e., she wandered around the cage, searching for an escape. The animal was observed to stay near the pre-marked nest longer than any other part of the cage. After approximately one and a half hours, Gerbil A settled down into the pre-marked nest and fell asleep. In short, the gerbil stayed in her own territory. Gerbil A was then returned to her holding cage and the experimental cage was washed in preparation for Session 11. In Session 11, the cage was set up exactly the same way as in Session I. This time, Gerbil B was placed in the cage and observed. Her behavior was similar to that of Gerbil A. The major difference was that she stayed away from the nest marked with Gerbil A's oils. Instead, she made her own nest and fell asleep tftere. She seemed to have made her own territory nest and kept away from another's territory. In Session 111, both gerbils were placed in the cage with Gerbil A's oils. They attacked each other. Gerbil B controlled the cage for approximately an hour. Soon after, Gerbil A ferociously attacked Gerbil B and took over the marked nest by thumpingsqueaking behavior. Both gerbils were hurt but A remained in control of the cage. It appears that own marker oils identified Gerbil A's territory, respected by Gerbil B when each was alone. In the cage together A fought to defend her remarked territory

Biology · Cage · Gerbil · Intrusion · Nest (protein structural motif · Zoology · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Biochemistry · Insect and Pesticide Research · Internal Medicine · Mathematics · Medicine · Plant and animal studies

  • Taxonomic Abstraction in Psychobiology

    Selby H Evans, Michael D Chafetz et al.•The Journal of General Psychology•1984

Citations per year0.02
Citation span1984 - 1984 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae