Published July 12, 2018 | Version v1
Journal article Open

STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT SCENT SOURCES THAT ATTRACTS OPPOSITE AND SAME SEX OF SOFT-FURRED FIELD RAT MILLARDIA MELTADA (GRAY, 1837)

Creators

  • 1. Department of Zoology, Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam-614 701, Tamil Nadu, India

Description

The present study was carried out to evaluate the ability of to discriminate soft-furred field rat Millardia meltada rat odor from different reproductive phases, with a view toward detecting the estrous phase. Experiments were also carried out to establish the relationship between the behavioral analyses were carried out in a Y-maze apparatus, in which the soft furred field rat were acclimatized in before Y maze apparatus. The number and duration of visits, and grooming behavior by male responders towards the gland samples were recorded. Intact male rat showed a higher response towards glands samples. These results suggest that rat have the ability to discriminate the different scent gland odour. The grooming behavior shown by males in response to scent glands may be taken as key parameters to produce specific odors that probably involve both intra specific and inter specific communication.

Files

5. IJZAB ID No. 175.pdf

Files (308.6 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:014b908793463b8a26474a76fd05b2c5
308.6 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Adams, M.G., 1980. Odour-producing organs of mammals. Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 45, 57-86.
  • Archunan, G., 2003. Odour discrimination study using 'Y'and '+' maze apparatus. In: Lectures on Recent Trends in Ethology and Behavioural Sciences. (ed) John Thomas, K., Irinjalakuda, Kerala, pp. 92-96.
  • Armitage, K.B., 1976. Scent marking by yellow-bellied marmots. J. Mammal., 57, 583-584.
  • Asa, C.S., Peterson, E.K., Mech, L.D. and Seal, U.S., 1985. Deposition of anal sac secretions by captive wolves (Canis lupus). J. Mammal. 66, 89-99.
  • Bakker, J., Ophemert, J.V. and Slob, A.K., 1996. Sexual differentiation of odour and partner preference in the rat. Physiol. Behav., 40, 489-494.
  • Balakrishnan, M. and Alexander, K.M., 1980. Olfactory inhibition of scent marking in the Indian musk shrew, Suncus murinus viridescens (Blyth). Bonn. Zool. Beitr., 31, 2-15.
  • Balakrishnan M. and Alexander, K.M., 1985. Sources of body odours in some Indian mammals. Indian Rev. Life Sci., 71, 257-258.
  • Beach, F.A. and Gilmore, R.W., 1949. Response of male dogs to urine from females in heat. J. Mammal., 30, 391-392.
  • Ben-Ari, E.T., 1998. Pheromones: What's in a name? Bioscience, 48, 505-511.
  • Benson, B.N. 1980. Dominant relationships, mating behaviour and scent marrking in fox squirrels. Mammalia, 44, 143-160.
  • Carr W.J., Krames, L. and Costango, D.J., 1970. Previous sexual experience and olfactory preference for novel versus original sex partners in rats. J. Comp. Psychol., 71, 216-222.
  • Carr, W.J., Loeb, L.S. and Dissinger, M.L., 1965. Responses of rats to sex odours. Comp. Psychol., 59, 210-211.
  • Dominic, C.J., 1991. Chemical communication in animals. J. Sci. Res. (Banaras Hindu University), 41, 157-169.
  • Doty, R.L., 1980. Scent marking in mammals. In: Denny, M.R. (Ed.). Comparative Psychology: Research in Animal Behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 385-399.
  • Drickamer, L.C., 1995. Odours in traps: Does most recent occupants influence capture rates for house mice. J. Chem. Ecol., 21, 541-555.
  • Edwards, D.A. and Binhorn, L.C., 1986. Preoptic and midbrain control of sexual motivation. Physiol. Behav., 37, 329-335.
  • Edward, D.A. Walter, B. and Liang, P. 1996. Hypothalamic and olfactory control of sexual behaviour and partner preference in male rats. Physiol. Behav., 60, 1347-1354.
  • Gawienowski, A.M., Denicola, D.B. and Stacewizc-sapuntzakis, M., 1976. Androgen dependence of a marking pheromone in rat urine. Norm. Behav., 7, 401-405
  • Gosling, L.M., 1985. The even toad ungulates: Order Artiodactyla, In: Social odours in mammals. Brown, R.E. and Macdonald, D.W. (Eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 550-618
  • Hurst, J.L., 1990. Urine marking in population of wild house mice (Mus domesticus) communication between the sexes. Anim. Behav., 40(2), 233-243.
  • Johnston, R.E., 1980. Responses of male hamsters to the odors of females in different reproductive states. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 94, 894-904.
  • Johnston, R.E., 1981. Attraction to odours in hamsters: An evaluation of methods. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 95, 951-960.
  • Johnston, R.E., 1990. Chemical communication in golden hamsters: from behaviours to molecules and neural mechanisms. In: Dewsbury, D.A. (ed.) Contem Psychol. Signaur Press, New York, pp. 381-409.
  • Kannan, S. and Archunan, G. 1997. Biochemical variations of male scent markers alter the attractiveness in the female rats, Rattus norvegicus. Acta Physiol., 85(2), 175-181.
  • Kannan, S. and Archunan, G., 1998. Effect of gonadectomy on scent glands pheromonal orientation and grooming behaviour in rats, Rattus norvegicus. J. Exp. Zool. India, 149-158.
  • Kannan, S. and Archunan, G., 2001. Chemistry of clitoral gland secretions of the laboratory rat: assessment of behavioural response to identified compounds. J. Biol. Sci., 26, 247-252.
  • Kannan, S., Krishnan, M., Tarvinder, K.T., Vinodkumar, S. 2007. Raising antibody against mouse sex pheromone binding protein in rabbit. J. Biosains, 18, 13-21.
  • Kannan, S., Bharathiraja, C. and Krishnan, M., 2008. Regulatory mechanism of sex pheromone and intracellular calcium level in V2Rx receptor expressing cells. Curr. Sci., 95, 397-400.
  • Kennaugli, J.H., Chapman, D.I. and Chapman, N.G., 1977. Seasonal changes in the prepuce of adult follow deer (Dama dama) and its probable function as a scent organ. J. Zool., 183, 301-310.
  • Lindsay, D.R., 1965. The importance of olfactory stimuli in the mating behaviour of the ranj. Aniin. Behav., 13, 75-78.
  • Lydell, K. and Doty, R.L. 1972. Male rat odour preferences for female urine as a function of sexual experience, urine age and urine sources. Norm. Behav., 3, 205-212.
  • Mugford, R.A. and Nowell, N.W., 1971. The reputial gland as a source of aggression promoting odour in mice. Physiol. Behav., 6, 247-249.
  • Mykytowycz, R., 1970. Role of skin glands in mammalian communication. In: Advances in chemoreception 1 Communication by chemical signals (Eds.) J.W. Jonhnson, D.G. Moulton and A. Turk. New York, Appleton Century crofts, pp. 327-360.
  • Owings, D.H., Borcliert, M. and Virginia, R., 1977. The behaviour of California ground squirrels. Anim. Behav., 25, 221-230.
  • Pandey, S.D. and Pandey, S.C., 1984. Effect of an androgen on attractive function of preputial glands in the wild mouse. Physiol. Behav., 35, 851-854.
  • Pfaff, D.W. and Pfaffmann, C., 1979. Behavioural and electro physiological responses of male rats to female rats urine odours. In: Olfaction and Taste III. Pfaffmann, C. (Ed.). Rockefeller University Press, New York, pp. 258-267.
  • Poddar-Sarkar, M., Brahmachary, R.L., 1999. Can free fatty acids in the tiger act as an individual finger print? Curr. Sci., 76, 141-142.
  • Prakash, I. and Idris, M., 1992. Scent marking behaviour. In: Rodents in Indian Agriculture, Prakash, I. and Ghosh, P.K. (Eds.), Scientific publishers, India, 32, 445-460.
  • Robertson, D., Beynon, R. and Evershed, R., 1993. Extraction, characterization, and binding analysis of two pheromonally active ligands associated with major urinary protein of house mouse (Mus musculus). J. Chem. Ecol., 19, 1405–1416.

Subjects

Zoology
10.5281/zenodo.1310554