Next Article in Journal
Large Lung Consolidation: A Rare Presentation of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis
Previous Article in Journal
Alloplastic Epidermal Skin Substitute in the Treatment of Burns
Previous Article in Special Issue
Controlling Effects of Nanocomposite Sterilant ND-1 on the Growth of Wild Populations of Midday Gerbil (Meriones meridianus)
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Seasonal Changes in Nycthemeral Availability of Sympatric Temperate Mixed Forest Rodents: The Predators’ Perspective

Ornis—Biology Engineering Office and Research Institute, Dr. G. H. Neckheimstr. 18/3, A-9560 Feldkirchen, Austria
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2024, 14(1), 45;
Submission received: 15 October 2023 / Revised: 11 November 2023 / Accepted: 25 December 2023 / Published: 27 December 2023


(1) Background: Bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) and Apodemus mice are of exceptional importance as prey for predators in temperate mixed forests. We hypothesized that overall prey availability would increase linearly with prey frequency, and that the daylight hours, which are considered particularly dangerous, would be used only during seasonal rodent population peaks and only in the twilight hours. (2) Methods: We conducted a two-year camera-trapping study in an inner alpine mixed forest and collected 19,138 1 min videos in 215 camera-trap nights. Prey availability was defined as the pseudo-replication-limited maximum number of the respective rodent taxon per 30 min period, summed per season. (3) Results: Overall prey availability increased with frequency, i.e., the maximum number of rodent individuals per camera-trap night. Seasonally, Apodemus mice were particularly available to predators in the summer and bank voles in the autumn after a tree mast year. In both cases, this was accompanied by a significant increase in diurnal availability. During the population peak of Apodemus mice, the nocturnal availability of bank voles decreased without a concurrent increase in absolute diurnal availability, even though the significant relative shift to diurnal activity superficially suggested this. Bank voles were active throughout the day, while Apodemus mice were nocturnal and (rarely) crepuscular. (4) Conclusions: Availability of rodents to predators, especially during daylight hours, was mainly dependent on their tree mast-induced increased frequencies. Bank voles likewise responded strongly to interspecific competition with the larger and aggressive Apodemus mice, which negatively affected availability to predators. At our seasonal level of evaluation, we conclude that nycthemeral availability of forest-dwelling rodents to generalist predators of temperate mixed forests is predominantly driven by bottom-up mechanisms.

1. Introduction

In the arms race against predators, prey have evolved powerful defense mechanisms. Antipredator protection includes avoidance, warning signals, such as aposematism and calls, physical deterrence, and group defense [1,2,3]. In a restricted, functional sense, avoidance means staying away spatially or temporally from predators and thereby eluding detection [3]. To avoid encounters with predators, prey may alter their activity patterns according to the risk allocation hypothesis, i.e., adaptively changing temporal exposure to predation across high- and low-risk situations [4,5,6,7,8]. The majority of small, ground-dwelling mammals in the world are nocturnal, but diurnal, crepuscular, and cathemeral strategies also exist [9]. Nocturnal activity is presumably an evolutionary adaptation to an increased predation risk in the day due to the superior sensory abilities of diurnal predators [10,11,12,13].
Most of the time, however, there is a trade-off between activities like foraging, mating, intraguild interaction, and antipredator behavior [14,15], and multiple predator communities may increase the temporal overlap with prey [16,17]. Therefore, it is not possible for prey species, such as temperate mixed forest-dwelling rodents like Apodemus spp. mice (hereafter referred to as Apodemus mice) and bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus), formerly known as Myodes glareolus [18], to completely avoid exposure to predators or to be active only at night [19,20,21,22]. In fact, mice of the genus Apodemus are predominantly nocturnal, whereas bank voles exhibit a more flexible activity pattern [23,24]. Factors influencing (increased) diurnal activity in these small mammals can be diverse and include abiotic factors such as temperature and precipitation [25,26,27,28], as well as biotic factors such as nutrition, intraspecific organization, and intraguild competition [29,30,31,32,33].
From the perspective of a wide range of predators, Apodemus mice and bank voles are important prey, and a seasonally increased prey availability is of particular interest with regard to survival and reproduction [34,35]. In inner alpine mixed forests such as our study area, this includes diurnal predators such as common buzzard (Buteo buteo, [36]), nocturnal predators such as tawny owl (Strix aluco, [37]), stone marten (Martes foina, [38]) and European polecat (Mustela putorius, [39]), as well as nycthemeral more flexible predators such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes, [40]), pine marten (Martes martes, [41]) and domestic cat (Felis catus, [42]).
Our dataset covers two years of camera-trapping. We define availability as the probability that prey will be accessible to above ground hunting predators [43]. As an approximation of the overall availability of prey, the pseudo-replication-limited maximum numbers of Apodemus mice and bank voles of the 48 30-min periods per day were added up, separately in each of the eight seasons investigated. The highest prey frequency per camera trap-night, i.e., the maximum number of prey individuals in any of the 48 given 30-min periods per day, served as an approximation of prey abundance. We address questions related to seasonal availability of Apodemus mice and bank voles to their predators: 1. At first, we predicted that a higher frequency of forest rodents would lead to a proportionally increased availability, i.e., daily overall and seasonally enhanced access to prey (Prediction 1). 2. In the next step, we separated overall prey availability into different components, namely diurnal and nocturnal availability, and the relative ratio between these two. Because diurnal activity is considered particularly dangerous, we predicted that increased diurnal and in parallel nocturnal availability would only occur at high prey frequencies. Increased diurnal availability would result from an expansion of nocturnal activity, but not from a mere shift of availability into the day (Prediction 2). 3. Finally, we predicted that increased diurnal availability would result in greater use of the crepuscular margins of the day rather than mid-day. If ecologically necessary but dangerous, the activity of small forest-dwelling rodents should extend just into the light day, but not into the brightest hours (Prediction 3).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted on the inner alpine mountain range of the Ossiacher Tauern (46,692° N; 14,067° E) in the province of Carinthia, southern Austria. The mixed forest is situated at 550 m a. s. l. and dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies), but with an admixture of European beech (Fagus sylvatica), limes (Tilia platyphyllos and T. cordata), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), European ash (Fraxinus excelsior), European hazelnut (Corylus avellana), and fir (Abies alba). The largely closed and steep forest area consists mostly of weak tree wood, although some big “achievers” occur. In the two years of the camera trap study, mean annual temperature was 8.88 °C and 9.39 °C and the total annual precipitation was 1159 mm and 749 mm, respectively (, accessed on 1 September 2023).

2.2. Taxonomic Identification

Bank voles can be identified up to the species level in appropriate videos; for Apodemus mice, this is only possible to genus level [23]. In our study area, we expect the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) and the wood mouse (A. sylvaticus) to occur, while the alpine mouse (A. alpicola) is missing to current knowledge [44,45]. For our research question, the identification problem with the Apodemus mice is of minor importance, because both species under consideration are basically nocturnal [27,46].

2.3. Data Collection

The study was conducted from September 2020 to September 2022. The study area had a size of 4.8 ha (minimum convex polygon calculated using QGIS 3.18.0) and a random allocation layout of camera traps with 83 recording points was conducted [47]. We used Wild-Vision Full HD 5.0 camera traps with a Black-LED flash. Trigger speed was lower than 1 s and the passive infrared sensor (PIR) was designed for high sensitivity. We recorded 1 min videos in HD resolution of 1280 × 720 pixels [48]. Multiple individuals of the target species were only counted when they were simultaneously identified in a single video.
Apodemus mice and bank voles were attracted with unpeeled, black-and-white sunflower seeds [24] in a quantity of 0.5 kg per camera trap [49], to be able to feed a potentially high number of small forest-dwelling rodents at population peaks and thereby increasing the sample size [50]. To ensure the spatiotemporal independence of data [51,52], we set up camera traps every 12.07 ± 6.32 sd days and in a distance of 58.94 ± 42.47 sd m, corrected for the slope. Analyses were limited to the first 24 recording h per camera trap (hereafter called a camera trap-night) and recording points were not allowed to be reused in the subsequent trial.

2.4. Definitions of Terms and Data Treatment

  • Mast year/non-mast year: Within the two years of study, the first was characterized by an extreme seed mast, the second by a nil crop, hereafter referred to as mast year and non-mast year, respectively [33,53].
  • Seasons: Meteorological rather than astronomical seasons were used for this evaluation because they are based on the ecologically important annual temperature cycle.
  • Rodent frequencies: To achieve a high level of independence of the data, the video recordings per camera trap and trap-night were divided into 48 periods with a length of 30 min. Only the single recording with the highest number of Apodemus mice or bank voles was used per individual 30-min period [54].
  • Division day/night: Sunrise or sunset represents the boundary between day and night for the evaluated 30-min periods. The two twilight periods during a calendar day were assigned to day or night according to the higher number of corresponding minutes [33].
  • Availabilities of above ground active Apodemus mice and bank voles to predators: (a) overall: total daily availability, diurnal and nocturnal availabilities are summarized, (b) absolute diurnal: availability exclusively in the 30-min periods of the light day, (c) relative diurnal: proportion of diurnal availability out of the overall availability (%-value), and (d): absolute nocturnal: availability exclusively in the 30-min periods of the night.

2.5. Data Analyses

Data were analysed using R 4.3.0 [55]. Relationships between metric and non-normally distributed variables were assessed by means of Spearman correlations. Differences between two groups regarding non-normally distributed data were examined using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. In addition, multiple linear regressions were applied to analyse metric data. Loess-smoothing was used to graphically depict the progression of metric data over time. The statistical significance threshold for all analyses was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Availability

In this study, we analyzed 19,138 1 min videos collected in 215 camera-trap nights. The assessment of overall availability revealed a strong positive correlation with the maximum number of individuals per camera-trap night for both Apodemus mice (Spearman’s ρ: r = 0.618, p < 0.001) and bank voles (Spearman’s ρ: r = 0.856, p < 0.001). The visual impression from Figure 1, indicating that Apodemus mice are particularly available to predators in the summer and bank voles in the autumn after a tree mast year, is further supported by the results of the multiple linear regressions. In comparison to autumn 2020, Apodemus mice displayed significantly increased availability in summer 2021, followed by significant reductions in the subsequent spring and summer (Table 1). Bank voles also experienced a significant increase in availability, though not until the decline of Apodemus mice and the associated increased frequency in autumn 2021 (Table 2).

3.2. Nycthemeral Availability

3.2.1. Absolute and Relative Diurnal Availability

Absolute diurnal and relative diurnal availabilities are depicted (Figure 2 and Figure 3). In Apodemus mice, absolute diurnal availability was significantly increased only in summer 2021 (Table 3), and this equally applied to relative diurnal availability (Table 4). In bank voles, the peak of absolute diurnal availability shifted to autumn 2021 (Table 5). However, in contrast to Apodemus mice, this was not accompanied by increased relative diurnal availability. In fact, bank voles were relatively more available during the day from winter 2020/2021 to summer 2021 (Table 6) without a concurrent increase in absolute diurnal availability.

3.2.2. Absolute Nocturnal Availability

In Apodemus mice, absolute nocturnal availability increased significantly in summer 2021 in parallel with absolute and relative diurnal activity (Table 7). Additionally, availability was significantly reduced in the spring and summer 2022, albeit with very low frequencies of these mice. In bank voles, absolute nocturnal availability decreased significantly in spring 2021 and additionally showed an almost significant reduction in summer 2021 (Table 8). In autumn 2021, when absolute diurnal availability increased significantly, this was not mirrored by an equivalent increase in absolute nocturnal availability.

3.3. Diurnal Availability Pattern

The diurnal availability patterns, separated by season, are illustrated in Figure 4 for Apodemus mice and in Figure 5 for bank voles. Based on the average maximum frequency per 30-min period, the availability of Apodemus mice significantly decreases in the hours around midday (Spearman’s ρ: r = −0.160, p < 0.001). This is not the case with bank voles, as their availability actually increases around midday (Spearman’s ρ: r = 0.200, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

Diel activity pattern of prey, such as bank voles and Apodemus mice, is thought to be influenced by a trade-off between physiological needs and the reduction of predation risk through spatiotemporal avoidance [4,5]. This paper examines the seasonal availability of these sympatric, forest-dwelling rodents to generalist predators in an inner alpine mixed forest, with particular emphasis on the risks associated with diurnal activity [56]. We discuss the nycthemeral availability pattern in terms of intraspecific and intraguild bottom-up mechanisms (changes in prey frequency and concurrence among prey).
Only Apodemus mice conformed to our predictions. When they were particularly frequent during a population peak induced by a tree mast, they were more available to predators both at night and during the day. Their heightened diurnal activity during this season was an extension of their nocturnal activity rather than a shift to daytime. This markedly increased availability of Apodemus mice during the summer of 2021 was undoubtedly advantageous in terms of nutrition for both territorial predators (e.g., energy-demanding, post-breeding molt [57]) and dispersing predators [39,58]. However, after the population collapsed in the autumn of 2021, availability significantly decreased also at night from spring to summer 2022, thus possibly negatively affecting the predators’ reproductive phase in the following year [59].
Therefore, the availability to predators in this genus was strongly influenced by intraspecific and density-dependent mechanisms. Apodemus mice possess several traits that enable them to evade diurnal activity. They dominate over competitors such as bank voles [60], consume and store high-energy food [31], and can slow down their metabolism under certain circumstances [61,62]. In addition, sharpened sensory capabilities make them well-equipped to survive nocturnal predation attempts [23]. The increased diurnal availability cannot be attributed solely to the shorter nights in summer because it was not observed at low population densities in summer 2022 and availability was primarily concentrated to the twilight hours of the day. In conclusion, for predators, this translates to particularly high availability of Apodemus mice during population peaks, both at night [37,63,64] and even during the day [65].
Bank voles displayed considerably more varied responses in their chronoecology and barely met our predictions. Particularly in the spring and summer of 2021, both overall and absolute nocturnal activity was reduced, and availability relatively shifted into the daytime. This resulted in a decrease in availability to nocturnal predators without a corresponding increase in absolute diurnal availability, despite the calculation of the relative value superficially suggesting otherwise [66]. This inverse activity pattern closely coincided with the population maximum of the dominant Apodemus mice and can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid intraguild competition [33]. It was not until bank voles themselves reached a small population peak in the autumn of 2021 that absolute diurnal availability increased. By this time, the population of Apodemus mice had already collapsed, suggesting an intraspecific and density-driven effect as well. It can be surmised that the competition-induced reduction in overall availability in spring was facilitated by the availability of high-energy, less foraging time-consuming food obtainable during this season. However, this reduction possibly had a negative impact on population growth and may have shifted the frequency peak further into the autumn.
Bank voles were thus much more likely than Apodemus mice to exhibit diurnal activity, and this was not restricted to the twilight hours of the day. The increase in absolute diurnal availability observed in the autumn of 2021 was not accompanied by a parallel increase in absolute nocturnal availability either. Therefore, bank voles must have evolved effective antipredator strategies to keep diurnal mortality low or to derive other advantages from diurnal activity. Some potential benefits include reduced daily energy expenditure, as predicted by the circadian thermo-energetics hypothesis [61], as well as advantages in foraging and digestion [31,67]. Individual personality differences in bank voles may also account for some of the diurnal variation in risky behaviors such as foraging [68,69]. From the predators’ perspective, bank voles are known for their use of cover-rich microhabitats [70,71], making them relatively difficult to detect and capture, even during the day. Extensive pellet analyses in Central Europe involving a variety of diurnal and nocturnal predators, both avian and mammalian, have shown that the bank vole is notably underrepresented relative to its abundance [72]. The same is true for the boreonemoral region, where mice of the genus Microtus are preferred by various owl species [73].
At our seasonal day-night evaluation level, we hypothesize a bottom-up controlled predator-prey system. Seasonal and diurnal variations in prey availability were strongly influenced by intraspecific, density-dependent organization in Apodemus mice and bank voles as well. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis indicated a linear relationship between frequency and availability. Non-linear or exponential correlations were ruled out through examination of scatter plots. Bank voles were further influenced by competitive mechanisms within the guild of forest-dwelling rodents. As expected, when both Apodemus mice and bank voles were more frequent, their availability increased overall [74], but especially during the day. Surprisingly, at the peak of Apodemus mice frequency, interspecific competition significantly reduced bank vole availability both overall and during the night, without causing a shift in absolute availability to the daytime.
While we were able to detect the avoidance of moonlight as an indirect cue of predation risk in our study area [33], we found no evidence indicating that the generalist predators of this temperate forest ecosystem were responsible for the seasonal changes in the overall nycthemeral activity patterns of their rodent prey. We mainly recorded nocturnal generalist predators in the non-mast year (n = 13; red fox, 53.8%; stone marten, 23.1%; pine marten, 7.7%; European polecat, 7.7%; tawny owl, 7.7%), i.e., at the time when nocturnal activity was prevalent in Apodemus mice. Moreover, there was no difference in absolute diurnal availability with respect to the detection or non-detection of nocturnal predators in bank voles as well (W = 306.50, p = 0.811). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that predators induced increased diurnal activity, even via indirect cues such as feces, urine, and anal gland secretions [75,76]. In the predator-prey-system we investigated, the system-stabilizing generalist predators [77] are apparently unable to induce a temporal niche switching in rodents, from primarily nocturnal activity to predominantly diurnal activity, or vice versa. We conclude that predators in our study area need to adapt their hunting patterns to match the temporal availability of prey [13]. Resident specialized predators sensu [78] may have a greater influence on the nycthemeral activity of their rodent prey in their ongoing “David and Goliath” arms race [21,35,79,80,81,82]. However, we never detected highly specialized vole-hunting species such as stoat (Mustela erminea) and least weasel (Mustela nivalis) during our two years of study, neither by the camera traps nor by observations during field work.
We were only able to identify bank voles up to species and Apodemus mice up to genus level. Regarding behavioral choices made in response to predation risk, especially the important decisions about when, where, and what to feed [83], we primarily highlighted the first aspect. We had no data on the specific diets of our prey taxa, and our camera trap locations shared a high degree of habitat similarity [33]. Nevertheless, we did observe a “thigmotaxis parameter” (% of cover with lying deadwood, snags, and rocks in a 10 m radius of the camera trap) targeting the bank vole’s need for cover, which showed a negative correlation with overall availability (Spearman’s ρ: r = −0.217, p = 0.011). This suggested that with increasing frequency, bank voles possibly had to leave the sheltered cover more frequently. Conversely, there was a positive correlation for Apodemus mice, which are generally more socially tolerant (Spearman’s ρ: r = 0.865, p < 0.001). For a more comprehensive understanding of species-, sex-, age-, nutrition-, and habitat-specific characteristics, as well as effects of diel vulnerability to predation in the future, it would be promising to combine the camera trap survey with live-trapping [84,85,86], diet tracing [31,87,88,89,90], and further related aspects [69,91,92,93,94,95,96]. This approach would also enable a more precise measurement of the crucial parameter of availability [97].
We are, nevertheless, convinced to have made a methodological and subject-related contribution to the understanding of seasonal changes in nycthemeral availability of a temperate mixed forest-dwelling rodent community from the predators’ perspective:
  • We used the video function of camera traps, which is better suited than the photo function for determining the frequency (and behavior) of small mammals.
  • Camera traps reduce the need for handling and thus minimize disturbance of the target organisms. We were able to accurately determine the nycthemeral activity of Apodemus mice and bank voles because we completely avoided manipulations during the twilight hours.
  • We conducted a two-year, year-round study, allowing us to cover all seasons with a large sample of videos.
  • The tree mast/nil crop-induced outbreak-crash pattern in Apodemus mice in our study provided us with a quasi-experimental situation to measure the influence of the dominant competitor.
  • Overall above ground availability to predators (summed maxima of prey individuals of the 48 30-min periods/camera trap-night) increased linearly with frequency (maximum number of prey individuals/camera trap-night) in Apodemus mice as well as in bank voles.
  • Seasonally, Apodemus mice were only available to diurnal predators at times of high population densities; in bank voles, diurnal activity increased at a (small) population peak.
  • We were able to show that the commonly used relative measure of nycthemeral activity in prey animals can lead to misconceptions about availability to predators. During the population peak of Apodemus mice, bank voles were diurnally active for up to three quarters of their activity time, without changing the absolute duration and, thus, their availability in daylight hours to predators.
  • Our study suggests that in a temperate mixed forest, prey availability is bottom-up controlled. This mainly depends on intraspecific, density-dependent population phenomena and is also influenced by intra-guild competition with Apodemus mice in the case of the bank vole. We found no evidence for control of this forest predator-prey system by the generalist, predominantly non-migratory predators.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P. (Remo Probst) and R.P. (Renate Probst); methodology, R.P. (Remo Probst); software, R.P. (Renate Probst); validation, R.P. (Remo Probst) and R.P. (Renate Probst); formal analysis, R.P. (Remo Probst); investigation, R.P. (Remo Probst) and R.P. (Renate Probst); resources, R.P. (Remo Probst); data curation, R.P. (Renate Probst); writing—original draft preparation, R.P. (Remo Probst); writing—review and editing, R.P. (Remo Probst); visualization, R.P. (Remo Probst); supervision, R.P. (Remo Probst); project administration, R.P. (Renate Probst). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data, tables, and figures are original. Details on data availability can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


We are very grateful to N. Nau for the opportunity to conduct this study on his property, M. Wunder for GIS work, F. Klein for statistical analyses, S. Glatz-Jorde for a vegetation survey, and A. Wunder for improving our English.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. Edmunds, M. Defence in Animals: A Survey of Anti-Predator Defences; Longman: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  2. Endler, J. Interactions between Predators and Prey. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach; Krebs, J.R., Davis, N.B., Eds.; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, MS, USA, 1991; pp. 169–196. [Google Scholar]
  3. Caro, T.M. Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lima, S.L.; Bednekoff, P.A. Temporal Variation in Danger Drives Antipredator Behavior: The Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis. Am. Nat. 1999, 153, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Halle, S. Activity Patterns in Small Mammals. An Ecological Approach; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sih, A.; Ziemba, R.; Harding, K.C. New Insights on How Temporal Variation in Predation Risk Shapes Prey Behavior. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15, 3–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Monterroso, P.; Alves, P.C.; Ferreras, P. Catch Me If You Can: Diel Activity Patterns of Mammalian Prey and Predators. Ethology 2013, 119, 1044–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Feng, J. Arms Race of Temporal Partitioning between Carnivorous and Herbivorous Mammals. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bennie, J.J.; Duffy, J.P.; Inger, R.; Gaston, K.J. Biogeography of Time Partitioning in Mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 13727–13732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bleicher, S.S.; Marko, H.; Morin, D.J.; Teemu, K.; Hannu, Y. Balancing Food, Activity and the Dangers of Sunlit Nights. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2019, 73, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kotler, B.P.; Brown, J.; Mukherjee, S.; Berger-Tal, O.; Bouskila, A. Moonlight Avoidance in Gerbils Reveals a Sophisticated Interplay among Time Allocation, Vigilance and State-Dependent Foraging. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2010, 277, 1469–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brown, J.S. Vigilance, Patch Use and Habitat Selection: Foraging under Predation Risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1999, 1, 49–71. [Google Scholar]
  13. Halle, S. Diel Pattern of Predation Risk in Microtine Rodents. Oikos 1993, 68, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sih, A. Optimal Behavior: Can Foragers Balance Two Conflicting Demands? Science 1980, 210, 1041–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schmitz, O.J.; Trussell, G.C. Multiple Stressors, State-Dependence and Predation Risk—Foraging Trade-Offs: Toward a Modern Concept of Trait-Mediated Indirect Effects in Communities and Ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2016, 12, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Korpimaki, E.; Koivunen, V.; Hakkarainen, H. Microhabitat Use and Behavior of Voles under Weasel and Raptor Predation Risk: Predator Facilitation? Behav. Ecol. 1996, 7, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sih, A.; Englund, G.; Wooster, D. Emergent Impacts of Multiple Predators on Prey. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kryštufek, B.; Tesakov, A.S.; Lebedev, V.S.; Bannikova, A.A.; Abramson, N.I.; Shenbrot, G. Back to the Future: The Proper Name for Red-Backed Voles Is Clethrionomys Tilesius and Not Myodes Pallas. Mammalia 2020, 84, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liesenjohann, T.; Eccard, J. Foraging under Uniform Risk from Different Types of Predators. BMC Ecol. 2008, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gliwicz, J.; Dąbrowski, M.J. Ecological Factors Affecting the Diel Activity of Voles in a Multi-Species Community. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2008, 45, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eccard, J.A.; Pusenius, J.; Sundell, J.; Halle, S.; Ylönen, H. Foraging Patterns of Voles at Heterogeneous Avian and Uniform Mustelid Predation Risk. Oecologia 2008, 157, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liesenjohann, T.; Liesenjohann, M.; Trebaticka, L.; Sundell, J.; Haapakoski, M.; Ylönen, H.; Eccard, J.A. State-Dependent Foraging: Lactating Voles Adjust Their Foraging Behavior According to the Presence of a Potential Nest Predator and Season. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2015, 69, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Niethammer, J.; Krapp, F. Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas: Cricetidae, Arvicolidae, Zapodidae, Sspalacidae, Hystricidae, Capromyidae; Akademische Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  24. Niethammer, J.; Krapp, F. Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas: Sciuridae, Castoridae, Gliridae, Muridae; Akademische Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  25. Brown, L.E. Field Experiments on the Activity of the Small Mammals, Apodemus, Clethrionomys and Microtus. Proc. R. Soc. 1956, 126, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vickery, W.L.; Bider, J.R. The Influence of Weather on Rodent Activity. J. Mammal. 1981, 62, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Viviano, A.; Scarfò, M.; Mori, E. Temporal Partitioning between Forest-Dwelling Small Rodents in a Mediterranean Deciduous Woodland. Animals 2022, 12, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wróbel, A.; Bogdziewicz, M. It Is Raining Mice and Voles: Which Weather Conditions Influence the Activity of Apodemus flavicollis and Myodes glareolus? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2015, 61, 475–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mironov, A.D. Spatial and Temporal Organization of Populations of the Bank Vole, Clethrionomys glareolus. In Social Systems and Population Cycles in Voles; Tamarin, R.H., Ostfeld, R.S., Pugh, S.R., Bujalska, G., Eds.; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 1990; pp. 181–192. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eccard, J.A.; Ylönen, H. Interspecific Competition in Small Rodents: From Populations to Individuals. Evol. Ecol. 2003, 17, 423–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Butet, A.; Delettre, Y.R. Diet Differentiation between European Arvicoline and Murine Rodents. Acta Theriol. 2011, 56, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hernández, M.C.; Navarro-Castilla, Á.; Wilsterman, K.; Bentley, G.E.; Barja, I. When Food Access Is Challenging: Evidence of Wood Mice Ability to Balance Energy Budget under Predation Risk and Physiological Stress Reactions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2019, 73, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Probst, R.; Probst, R. High Frequency of Apodemus Mice Boosts Inverse Activity Pattern of Bank Voles, Clethrionomys glareolus, through Non-Aggressive Intraguild Competition. Animals 2023, 13, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pucek, Z.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Pucek, M. Rodent Population Dynamics in a Primeval Deciduous Forest (Białowieża National Park) in Relation to Weather, Seed Crop, and Predation. Acta Theriol. 1993, 38, 199–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jędrzejewski, W.; Rychlik, L.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Jedrzejewski, W.; Jedrzejewska, B. Responses of Bank Voles to Odours of Seven Species of Predators: Experimental Data and Their Relevance to Natural Predator-Vole Relationships. Oikos 1993, 68, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Walls, S.; Kenward, R. The Common Buzzard; Poyser: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Luka, V.; Riegert, J. Apodemus Mice as the Main Prey that Determines Reproductive Output of Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) in Central Europe. Popul. Ecol. 2018, 60, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Posłuszny, M.; Pilot, M.; Goszczy, J.; Gralak, B. Diet of Sympatric Pine Marten (Martes martes) and Stone Marten (Martes foina) Identified by Genotyping of DNA from Faeces. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2007, 44, 269–284. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lodé, T. Time Budget as Related to Feeding Tactics of European Polecat Mustela putorius. Behav. Process. 1999, 47, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Castañeda, I.; Doherty, T.S.; Fleming, P.A.; Stobo-Wilson, A.M.; Woinarski, J.C.Z.; Newsome, T.M. Variation in Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Diet in Five Continents. Mamm. Rev. 2022, 52, 328–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Russell, A.J.M.; Storch, I. Summer Food of Sympatric Red Fox and Pine Marten in the German Alps. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2004, 50, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Krauze-Gryz, D.; Żmihorski, M.; Gryz, J. Annual Variation in Prey Composition of Domestic Cats in Rural and Urban Environment. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Belovsky, G.E.; Ritchie, M.E.; Moorehead, J. Foraging in Complex Environments: When Prey Availability Varies over Time and Space. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1989, 36, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spitzenberger, F. Die Säugetierfauna Österreichs; Austria Medien Service: Graz, Austria, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  45. Grimmberger, E. Die Säugetiere Mitteleuropas: Beobachten und Bestimmen; Quelle & Meyer Verlag: Wiebelsheim, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Greenwood, P.J. Timing of Activity of the Bank Vole Clethrionomys glareolus and the Wood Mouse Apodemus sylvaticus in a Deciduous Woodland. Oikos 1978, 31, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meek, P.D.; Ballard, G.; Claridge, A.; Kays, R.; Moseby, K.; O’Brien, T.; O’Connell, A.; Sanderson, J.; Swann, D.E.; Tobler, M.; et al. Recommended Guiding Principles for Reporting on Camera Trapping Research. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2321–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Green, S.E.; Stephens, P.A.; Whittingham, M.J.; Hill, R.A. Camera Trapping with Photos and Videos: Implications for Ecology and Citizen Science. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 9, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soné, K.; Kohno, A. Acorn Hoarding by the Field Mouse, Apodemu speciosus Temminck (Rodentia: Muridae). J. For. Res. 1999, 4, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Trolliet, F.; Huynen, M.-C.; Vermeulen, C.; Hambuckers, A. Use of Camera Traps for Wildlife Studies. A Review. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2014, 18, 446–454. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rooney, S.M.; Wolfe, A.; Hayden, T.J. Autocorrelated Data in Telemetry Studies: Time to Independence and the Problem of Behavioural Effects. Mamm. Rev. 1998, 28, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Korn, H. Changes in Home Range Size during Growth and Maturation of the Wood Mouse (Apodemus syIvaticus) and the Bank Vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). Oecologia 1986, 68, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zwander, V.H.; Aigner, S.; Koll, H. Der Pollenflug in Kärnten im Jahr 2020. Carinthia II 2021, 211, 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mori, E.; Sangiovanni, G.; Corlatti, L. Gimme Shelter: The Effect of Rocks and Moonlight on Occupancy and Activity Pattern of an Endangered Rodent, the Garden Dormouse Eliomys quercinus. Behav. Process. 2020, 170, 103999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023; Available online: (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  56. Daan, S.; Aschoff, J. Circadian Contributions to Survival. In Vertebrate Circadian Systems; Aschoff, J., Daan, S., Groos, G.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1982; pp. 305–321. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zuberogoitia, I.; Zabala, J.; Martínez, J.E. Moult in Birds of Prey: A Review of Current Knowledge and Future Challenges for Research. Ardeola 2018, 65, 183–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Passarotto, A.; Morosinotto, C.; Brommer, J.E.; Aaltonen, E.; Ahola, K.; Karstinen, T.; Karell, P. Dear Territory or Dear Partner? Causes and Consequences of Breeding Dispersal in a Highly Territorial Bird of Prey with a Strong Pair Bond. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2023, 77, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jedrzejewski, W.; Jedrzejewska, B.; Zub, K.; Ruprecht, A.L.; Bystrowski, C. Resource Use by Tawny Owls Strix aluco in Relation to Rodent Fluctuations in Bialowieza National Park, Poland. J. Avian Biol. 1994, 25, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sozio, G.; Mortelliti, A. Empirical Evaluation of the Strength of Interspecific Competition in Shaping Small Mammal Communities in Fragmented Landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 775–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. van der Vinne, V.; Gorter, J.A.; Riede, S.J.; Hut, R.A. Diurnality as an Energy-Saving Strategy: Energetic Consequences of Temporal Niche Switching in Small Mammals. J. Exp. Biol. 2015, 218, 2585–2593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Boratyński, J.S.; Iwińska, K.; Bogdanowicz, W. Body Temperature Variation in Free-Living and Food-Deprived Yellow-necked Mice Sustains an Adaptive Framework for Endothermic Thermoregulation. Mammal Res. 2018, 63, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balčiauskas, L. Selection by Size of the Yellow-necked Mice (Apodemus flavicollis) by Breeding Tawny Owl (Strix aluco). North West. J. Zool. 2014, 10, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zárybnická, M.; Riegert, J.; Št’astný, K. The Role of Apodemus Mice and Microtus Voles in the Diet of the Tengmalm’s Owl in Central Europe. Popul. Ecol. 2013, 55, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Šotnár, K.; Obuch, J. Feeding Ecology of a Nesting Population of the Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) in the Upper Nitra Region, Central Slovakia. Slovak Raptor J. 2009, 3, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. O’Brien, T.G. Abundance, Density and Relative Abundance: A Conceptual Framework. In Camera Traps in Animal Ecology. Methods and Analyses; O’Connell, A.F., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 71–96. [Google Scholar]
  67. Halle, S. Polyphasic Activity Patterns in Small Mammals. Folia Primatol. 2006, 77, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Merz, M.R.; Boone, S.R.; Mortelliti, A. Predation Risk and Personality Influence Seed Predation and Dispersal by a Scatter-hoarding Small Mammal. Ecosphere 2023, 14, e4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schirmer, A.; Herde, A.; Eccard, J.A.; Dammhahn, M. Individuals in Space: Personality-Dependent Space Use, Movement and Microhabitat Use Facilitate Individual Spatial Niche Specialization. Oecologia 2019, 189, 647–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mazurkiewicz, M. Population Dynamics and Demography of the Bank Vole in Different Tree Stands. Acta Theriol. 1991, 36, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hille, S.M.; Mortelliti, A. Microhabitat Partitioning of Apodemus flavicollis and Myodes glareolus in the Sub-Montane Alps: A Preliminary Assessment. Hystrix 2011, 21, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Braun, M.; Dieterlen, F. (Eds.) Die Säugetiere Baden-Württembergs; Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  73. Avotins, A.; Avotins, A.; Ķerus, V.; Aunins, A. Numerical Response of Owls to the Dampening of Small Mammal Population Cycles in Latvia. Life 2023, 13, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Augugliaro, C.; Anile, S.; Munkhtsog, B.; Janchivlamdan, C.; Batzorig, E.; Mazzon, I.; Nielsen, C. Activity Overlap between Mesocarnivores and Prey in the Central Mongolian Steppe. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 34, 514–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Orrock, J.L. Rodent Foraging Is Affected by Indirect, but Not by Direct, Cues of Predation Risk. Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15, 433–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Apfelbach, R.; Blanchard, C.D.; Blanchard, R.J.; Hayes, R.A.; McGregor, I.S. The Effects of Predator Odors in Mammalian Prey Species: A Review of Field and Laboratory Studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2005, 29, 1123–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Andreassen, H.P.; Sundell, J.; Ecke, F.; Halle, S.; Haapakoski, M.; Henttonen, H.; Huitu, O.; Jacob, J.; Johnsen, K.; Koskela, E.; et al. Population Cycles and Outbreaks of Small Rodents: Ten Essential Questions We Still Need to Solve. Oecologia 2021, 195, 601–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Andersson, M.; Erlinge, S. Influence of Predation on Rodent Populations. Oikos 1977, 29, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. McShea, W. Predation and Its Potential Impact on the Behavior of Microtine Rodents. In Social Systems and Population Cycles in Voles; Tamarin, R.H., Ostfeld, R.S., Pugh, S.R., Bujalska, G., Eds.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 1990; pp. 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ylönen, H.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Heikkilä, J. Antipredatory Behaviour of Clethrionomys Voles—‘David and Goliath’ arms Race. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1992, 29, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  81. Graham, I.M.; Lambin, X. The Impact of Weasel Predation on Cyclic Field-Vole Survival: The Specialist Predator Hypothesis Contradicted. J. Anim. Ecol. 2002, 71, 946–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ylönen, H.; Ronkainen, H. Breeding Suppression in the Bank Vole as Antipredatory Adaptation in a Predictable Environment. Evol. Ecol. 1994, 8, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lima, S.L.; Dill, L.M. Behavioral Decisions Made under the Risk of Predation: A Review and Prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 1990, 68, 619–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Torre, I.; Peris, A.; Tena, L. Estimating the Relative Abundance and Temporal Activity Patterns of Wood Mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) by Remote Photography in Mediterranean Post-Fire Habitats. Galemys 2005, 17, 41–52. [Google Scholar]
  85. Villette, P.; Krebs, C.J.; Jung, T.S.; Boonstra, R. Can Camera Trapping Provide Accurate Estimates of Small Mammal (Myodes rutilus and Peromyscus maniculatus) Density in the Boreal Forest? J. Mammal. 2016, 97, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sundell, J.; Trebatická, L.; Oksanen, T.; Ovaskainen, O.; Haapakoski, M.; Ylönen, H. Predation on Two Vole Species by a Shared Predator: Antipredatory Response and Prey Preference. Popul. Ecol. 2008, 50, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Navarro-Castilla, Á.; Hernández, M.C.; Barja, I. An Experimental Study in Wild Wood Mice Testing Elemental and Isotope Analysis in Faeces to Determine Variations in Food Intake Amount. Animals 2023, 13, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nielsen, J.M.; Clare, E.L.; Hayden, B.; Brett, M.T.; Kratina, P. Diet Tracing in Ecology: Method Comparison and Selection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ecke, F.; Berglund, Å.M.M.; Rodushkin, I.; Engström, E.; Pallavicini, N.; Sörlin, D.; Nyholm, E.; Hörnfeldt, B. Seasonal Shift of Diet in Bank Voles Explains Trophic Fate of Anthropogenic Osmium? Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1634–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Selva, N.; Hobson, K.A.; Cortés-Avizanda, A.; Zalewski, A.; Donázar, J.A. Mast Pulses Shape Trophic Interactions between Fluctuating Rodent Populations in a Primeval Forest. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sommer, N.R.; Alshwairikh, Y.A.; Arietta, A.Z.A.; Skelly, D.K.; Buchkowski, R.W. Prey Metabolic Responses to Predators Depend on Predator Hunting Mode and Prey Antipredator Defenses. Oikos 2023, 2023, e09664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Randler, C.; Kalb, J. Predator Avoidance Behavior of Nocturnal and Diurnal Rodents. Behav. Process. 2020, 179, 104214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Balčiauskas, L.; Stirkė, V.; Garbaras, A.; Skipitytė, R.; Balčiauskienė, L. Stable Isotope Analysis Supports Omnivory in Bank Voles in Apple Orchards. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sunde, P.; Forsom, H.M.; Al-Sabi, M.N.S.; Overskaug, K. Selective Predation of Tawny Owls (Strix aluco) on Yellow-necked Mice (Apodemus flavicollis) and Bank Voles (Myodes glareolus). Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2012, 49, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ferreira, C.M.; Dammhahn, M.; Eccard, J.A. Forager-mediated Cascading Effects on Food Resource Species Diversity. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tidhar, W.; Bonier, F.; Speakman, J. Sex- and Concentration-Dependent Effects of Predator Feces on Seasonal Regulation of Body Mass in the Bank Vole Clethrionomys glareolus. Horm. Behav. 2007, 52, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Wolda, H. Food Availability for an Insectivore and How to Measure It. Stud. Avian Biol. 1990, 13, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Seasonal overall availability of forest-dwelling rodents to their predators in an inner alpine study site. Significantly increased availability correlated with high frequencies of Apodemus mice and bank voles about one year after tree seed masting. The peak of availability occurred in the summer of 2021 for Apodemus mice, while it was less pronounced in autumn 2021 for bank voles. Each point represents one camera trap.
Figure 1. Seasonal overall availability of forest-dwelling rodents to their predators in an inner alpine study site. Significantly increased availability correlated with high frequencies of Apodemus mice and bank voles about one year after tree seed masting. The peak of availability occurred in the summer of 2021 for Apodemus mice, while it was less pronounced in autumn 2021 for bank voles. Each point represents one camera trap.
Life 14 00045 g001
Figure 2. Absolute and relative diurnal availability of Apodemus mice in an inner alpine study site. Both availabilities increased in parallel and significantly in summer 2021. Each point represents one camera trap.
Figure 2. Absolute and relative diurnal availability of Apodemus mice in an inner alpine study site. Both availabilities increased in parallel and significantly in summer 2021. Each point represents one camera trap.
Life 14 00045 g002
Figure 3. Absolute and relative diurnal availability of bank voles in an inner alpine study site. In contrast to Apodemus mice, absolute diurnal availability increased significantly only in autumn 2021. Bank voles were relatively, but not absolutely, more available to their predators during daylight hours from winter 2020/2021 into summer 2021. Each point represents one camera trap.
Figure 3. Absolute and relative diurnal availability of bank voles in an inner alpine study site. In contrast to Apodemus mice, absolute diurnal availability increased significantly only in autumn 2021. Bank voles were relatively, but not absolutely, more available to their predators during daylight hours from winter 2020/2021 into summer 2021. Each point represents one camera trap.
Life 14 00045 g003
Figure 4. Seasonal diurnal availability of Apodemus mice on an inner alpine study site. Diurnal availability was an extension of nocturnal availability, primarily occurring at the edges of the light day and coinciding almost exclusively with the time of population maximum.
Figure 4. Seasonal diurnal availability of Apodemus mice on an inner alpine study site. Diurnal availability was an extension of nocturnal availability, primarily occurring at the edges of the light day and coinciding almost exclusively with the time of population maximum.
Life 14 00045 g004
Figure 5. Seasonal diurnal availability of bank voles in an inner alpine study site. Availability is given for the entire light day.
Figure 5. Seasonal diurnal availability of bank voles in an inner alpine study site. Availability is given for the entire light day.
Life 14 00045 g005
Table 1. Seasonal overall availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.356.
Table 1. Seasonal overall availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.356.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−3.8323.385−1.1320.259
Spring 2021−4.3183.004−1.4370.153
Summer 202117.6923.3855.226<0.001
Autumn 20210.5883.5590.1650.869
Winter 2021/2022−5.9184.135−1.4310.154
Spring 2022−12.0274.015−2.9950.003
Summer 2022−6.8583.213−2.1350.034
Table 2. Seasonal overall availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.083.
Table 2. Seasonal overall availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.083.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−1.3083.161−0.4140.680
Spring 2021−4.2342.721−1.5560.122
Summer 2021−1.8083.009−0.6010.549
Autumn 20216.9233.1612.1900.030
Winter 2021/20221.3922.8710.4850.629
Spring 2022−1.9552.970−0.6580.512
Summer 20220.3392.9700.1140.909
Table 3. Absolute diurnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.216.
Table 3. Absolute diurnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.216.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−0.0110.811−0.0140.989
Spring 20210.4160.7200.5780.564
Summer 20214.3700.8115.388<0.001
Autumn 20210.5880.8530.6900.491
Winter 2021/20220.1410.9910.1420.887
Spring 20220.0320.9620.0330.973
Summer 20220.1630.7700.2120.832
Table 4. Relative diurnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.186.
Table 4. Relative diurnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.186.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−0.5842.329−0.2510.802
Spring 20211.0392.0670.5030.616
Summer 202111.2312.3294.822<0.001
Autumn 20212.5332.4481.0350.302
Winter 2021/2022−0.5042.845−0.1770.860
Spring 20220.3182.7620.1150.908
Summer 2022−0.1332.210−0.0600.952
Table 5. Absolute diurnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.037.
Table 5. Absolute diurnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.037.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/20211.0001.9570.5110.610
Spring 2021−0.2221.684−0.1320.895
Summer 20211.8131.8630.9730.332
Autumn 20214.3081.9572.2010.029
Winter 2021/2022−0.3001.777−0.1690.866
Spring 2022−0.6471.838−0.3520.725
Summer 2022−0.8821.838−0.4800.632
Table 6. Relative diurnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.153.
Table 6. Relative diurnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.153.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/202129.58213.2222.2370.027
Spring 202128.44411.3802.5000.014
Summer 202133.79312.5872.6850.008
Autumn 202121.76413.2221.6460.102
Winter 2021/2022−2.79312.009−0.2330.816
Spring 20221.85912.4200.1500.881
Summer 2022−9.39212.420−0.7560.451
Table 7. Absolute nocturnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.301.
Table 7. Absolute nocturnal availability of Apodemus mice. Adjusted R2 = 0.301.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−3.8213.187−1.1990.232
Spring 2021−4.7342.828−1.6740.096
Summer 202113.3223.1874.180<0.001
Autumn 20210.0003.3510.0001.000
Winter 2021/2022−6.0593.893−1.5560.122
Spring 2022−12.0593.780−3.1900.002
Summer 2022−7.0223.025−2.3210.022
Table 8. Absolute nocturnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.116.
Table 8. Absolute nocturnal availability of bank voles. Adjusted R2 = 0.116.
SeasonEstimateStandard Errort-Valuesp-Values
Winter 2020/2021−2.3082.216−1.0410.300
Spring 2021−4.0111.907−2.1030.037
Summer 2021−3.6202.109−1.7160.089
Autumn 20212.6152.2161.1800.240
Winter 2021/20221.6922.0130.8410.402
Spring 2022−1.3082.081−0.6280.531
Summer 20221.2222.0810.5870.558
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Probst, R.; Probst, R. Seasonal Changes in Nycthemeral Availability of Sympatric Temperate Mixed Forest Rodents: The Predators’ Perspective. Life 2024, 14, 45.

AMA Style

Probst R, Probst R. Seasonal Changes in Nycthemeral Availability of Sympatric Temperate Mixed Forest Rodents: The Predators’ Perspective. Life. 2024; 14(1):45.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Probst, Remo, and Renate Probst. 2024. "Seasonal Changes in Nycthemeral Availability of Sympatric Temperate Mixed Forest Rodents: The Predators’ Perspective" Life 14, no. 1: 45.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop