Natural animal food preference of Chinese mole shrew (Anourosorex squamipes) from an urban area: a laboratory study
Most wild animals are urban avoiders, but some others become adapters or exploiters successfully living in urban areas. Often, the latter is assumed to be attracted into cities by readily accessible and digestive anthropogenic food resources. Here, we quantified food preferences of sixteen (eight females and eight males) Chinese mole shrews (Anourosorex squamipes) captured from an urban area for "cafeteria tests" in laboratory. Shrews were presented with twelve foods allocated into three sets (natural animal, natural plant, and anthropogenic food). Once the most two highly consumed food items from each set were determined, six items were pooled together to form a mixed food. We found that these urban shrews tended to prefer raw pork, peanut, and cooked pork over others when offered three single food sets, respectively, whereas natural animal food was more preferred over the rest when the set of mixed food was offered. The results show that urban shrews acquired nutrition by consuming the significant preferred diets. Nevertheless, access to natural animal resources seems still mandatory for urban shrews, while animals could become more tolerant to disturbance because of these easily exploited and abundant fallback anthropogenic resources in urban environments.
___
- Abrahao JS, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0007428
- Alexander KA, 2015, PLOS NEGLECT TROP D, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003652
- Bateman PW, 2012, J ZOOL, V287, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x
- Brack Virgil Jr, 2006, Urban Habitats, V4, P127
- BROWN JS, 1995, OIKOS, V74, P122, DOI 10.2307/3545681
- BUCHALCZYK A, 1972, Acta Theriologica, V17, P221
- Ayres Athos Alexandre Cesnik, 2015, Acta Sci., Anim. Sci., V37, P329, DOI 10.4025/actascianimsci.v37i4.28196
- CHURCHFIELD S, 1994, ADV BIOL SHREWS, V18, P77
- Jakub K, 2017, REND LINCEI-SCI FIS, V28, P559, DOI 10.1007/s12210-017-0631-1
- Kaplan BS, 2011, INT J PRIMATOL, V32, P1397, DOI 10.1007/s10764-011-9541-8
- Karasov WH, 2007, PHYSL ECOLOGY ANIMAL .
- Klenovsek T, 2013, FOLIA ZOOL, V62, P193
- Larrinaga AR, 2010, ACTA OECOL, V36, P141, DOI 10.1016/j.actao.2009.11.003
- Lewis DL, 2015, ECOSPHERE, V6, DOI 10.1890/ES15-00137.1
- Lowry H, 2013, BIOL REV, V88, P537, DOI 10.1111/brv.12012
- Maibeche Y, 2015, PLOS ONE, V10, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0118596
- Merritt JF, 2000, ECOL STU AN, V141, P235
- Mohamed E., 2015, INT J ADV PHARM BIOL, V4, P144
- Molokwu MN, 2011, BEHAV ECOL, V22, P639, DOI 10.1093/beheco/arr025
- Murray M, 2015, ECOGRAPHY, V38, P1235, DOI 10.1111/ecog.01128
- Nie YG, 2006, J W ANHUI U, V22, P73 .
- Ottoni I, 2009, APPL ANIM BEHAV SCI, V117, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.002
- Pearson AM, 1996, PROCESSED MEATS, P23, DOI [10.1007/978-94-010-9692-8_2, DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-9692-8_2]
- Pulliam JRC, 2012, J R SOC INTERFACE, V9, P89, DOI 10.1098/rsif.2011.0223
- Ranhotra G. S., 1996, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, V9, P81, DOI 10.1006/jfca.1996.0009
- RAVINDRAN G, 1991, FOOD CHEM, V39, P99, DOI 10.1016/0308-8146(91)90088-6
- Rychlik L, 2002, BEHAV ECOL, V13, P216, DOI 10.1093/beheco/13.2.216
- Sauter A, 2006, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V60, P465, DOI 10.1007/s00265-006-0187-z
- Stafford EA, 1984, USE EARTHWORMS FEED .
- van Vliet Nathalie, 2011, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, V16, P45, DOI 10.1080/10871209.2010.523924
- Whelan CJ, 2005, OIKOS, V110, P481, DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13387.x
- Withey JC, 2009, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V24, P281, DOI 10.1007/s10980-008-9305-9
- Zar J.H., 2010, BIOSTATISTICAL ANAL .