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.

Keywords:

Urban adapter, foraging behavior, food choice anthropogenic food, cafeteria test, Anourosorex squamipes,

PDF

___

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 .