Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Of city and village mice: behavioural adjustments of striped field mice to urban environments

Abstract

A fundamental question of current ecological research concerns the drives and limits of species responses to human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC). Behavioural responses to HIREC are a key component because behaviour links individual responses to population and community changes. Ongoing fast urbanization provides an ideal setting to test the functional role of behaviour for responses to HIREC. Consistent behavioural differences between conspecifics (animal personality) may be important determinants or constraints of animals’ adaptation to urban habitats. We tested whether urban and rural populations of small mammals differ in mean trait expression, flexibility and repeatability of behaviours associated to risk-taking and exploratory tendencies. Using a standardized behavioural test in the field, we quantified spatial exploration and boldness of striped field mice (Apodemus agrarius, n = 96) from nine sub-populations, presenting different levels of urbanisation and anthropogenic disturbance. The level of urbanisation positively correlated with boldness, spatial exploration and behavioural flexibility, with urban dwellers being bolder, more explorative and more flexible in some traits than rural conspecifics. Thus, individuals seem to distribute in a non-random way in response to human disturbance based on their behavioural characteristics. Animal personality might therefore play a key role in successful coping with the challenges of HIREC.

Introduction

Urbanisation is one of the fastest-occurring and most widespread human-induced environmental changes (e.g.1,2). As urban environments expand more and more across the globe, wildlife must either adjust to rapid changes and human-modified landscapes, or experience severe declines and, ultimately, local extinction (e.g.2,3). The urban environment presents wildlife with novel challenges, including an altered biotic environment with anthropogenic disturbances, modified competitive interactions, new predators and parasites, as well as altered abiotic factors such as water, soil, light and air pollution, noise, soil sealing, fragmentation and traffic (e.g.2,4,5). As a result of these human-induced rapid environmental changes (HIREC5), ecosystems are experiencing sharp declines in biodiversity worldwide (e.g.1,2). A few species, however, are thriving and occur in high numbers in urban environments. A fundamental focus of current ecological and evolutionary research is to illuminate the drivers of the success of some animals in an urbanised world3,6,7 because these “urban laboratories” might advance our understanding of fundamental eco-evolutionary processes and key theoretical concepts, including niche construction and community assembly as well as the role humans play in eco-evolutionary dynamics8. The ability of an animal to adjust to novel challenges is likely to contribute to its ultimate success in urban environments (e.g.3,4,5,9). Behavioural adaptations are expected to play a major role in coping with HIREC because behaviour largely determines how individuals interact with their surroundings (e.g.4,6,9,10) and behaviour links across fundamental levels of organisation from individual responses to population and community changes7. Also, behavioural responses typically occur faster, and are more rapidly reversible, than other responses to environmental change (e.g.5,7). In fact, behaviours of the so-called “urban adapters” often differ from those of their same-species rural counterparts (e.g.3,5,9,10). Two main factors are usually considered as potential drivers of differences in behavioural responses to human disturbance in urban wildlife: behavioural flexibility and intrinsic behavioural characteristics (e.g.3,5,9). Behavioural flexibility (or reversible phenotypic plasticity) might allow some animals to habituate faster than others, become less sensitive to novel threats and find new alternative solutions to the challenges of urban life (e.g.3,5,9). Several studies have demonstrated elevated behavioural flexibility within urban-adapter species (e.g.11,12,13,14). However, research also suggests that some differences in the behaviours of urban adapters cannot be explained by habituation/plasticity alone (e.g.15,16). The second potential driver of behavioural adaptations to urban environments are intrinsic behavioural characteristics (e.g.3,5,9). Some individuals might just be better suited to reach and successfully colonize urban habitats than others (e.g.3,5,9). Between-individual behavioural differences that are stable over time and across contexts are termed animal personality17, temperament18 or coping style19. Individual animals can exhibit, for example, consistent levels of exploration, boldness, activity, sociability and aggression (e.g.17). Individuals with different behavioural types can play different ecological roles (e.g. exploiting different resources or ecological niches, being favoured at different stages of the dispersal/colonisation process) (e.g.20,21). “If some personality types are better suited to dealing with certain challenges than others, personality could determine how successfully individuals are able to occupy a range of different environments with different selective pressures”22. Following this line of reasoning, individual differences in spatial exploration/dispersal tendencies, risk-taking and tolerance to human disturbance might promote the successful colonisation and settlement in urbanised habitats of only certain behavioural types (e.g.9).

Among the axes of behavioural variation presenting potentially important implications for dispersal, settlement and establishment in novel environments, and particularly for coping with human-altered environments, are boldness and spatial exploration. Boldness is a personality trait that is characterized by individual differences in willingness to take risks in a variety of contexts (e.g.23,24,25). Here, we define risk-taking as the behaviour expressed in a risky situation and boldness as consistent individual differences in risk-taking behaviour17,26. Since behaviour under risk is a key determinant of both components of fitness (e.g.26,27), it is likely to be an ecologically relevant personality trait. It is well established that boldness has fitness consequences (e.g.28), is heritable (e.g.29,30,31), and subject to selection (e.g.32,33). Furthermore, boldness is linked to life-history decisions such as dispersal (e.g.34,35), foraging (e.g.26,36,37), antipredator behaviour (e.g.24,36,38), and mating (e.g.39,40,41).

Exploration refers to the gathering of information about the environment42, although the same term is also used to indicate the reaction to unfamiliar objects and places17. When applied to spatial exploration, a common problem faced by behavioural ecologists is to distinguish between the general locomotor activity and the gathering of environmental information (e.g.43,44,45). While the distinction is particularly sensitive for species that might use vision as a primary source of information, for taxa that rely predominantly on olfaction and touch to explore their environment/space, inter-individual variation in activity and spatial exploration are generally considered functionally integrated (e.g.43,46). Here, we define exploration as the gathering of information about the environment (e.g.42) and refer to spatial exploration as consistent individual differences in exploratory behaviour in the context of space and in connection to movement (e.g.43,46), and use the term “general activity” for locomotion. Exploration presents a heritable component (e.g.47,48,49,50,51), affects survival (e.g.28) and reproductive success (e.g.52,53,54), indicating that inter-individual variation in exploration could create targets of selection43, and that it is likely to be an ecologically relevant personality trait. Furthermore, inter-individual variation in spatial exploration predicts dispersal tendency and space use in a diverse range of taxa (e.g.9,55,56,57,58,59,60,61), shares a genetic underpinning with dispersal, at least in some species (e.g.50), and is also suggested to facilitate the range expansion and invasive spread into new habitats (e.g.43,62).

Investigating the differences in boldness and spatial exploration between rural and urban populations might therefore help to illuminate the determinants of successful adaptation to urban colonisation, as well as reasons why most animals fail to adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions. In the past few years, studies investigating behavioural adaptations to urban environments have flourished, focusing particularly on avian species (e.g.22,63,64,65).

Here we focus on small, ground-dwelling species with more restricted dispersal abilities and aimed at testing whether urban and rural populations of a widely distributed rodent differ in behavioural flexibility and in intrinsic behavioural characteristics. Understanding the determinants of successful urbanisation of rodents is of particular interest because many species are urban dwellers or even synanthropic and reservoirs for a variety of human pathogens (e.g. hanta virus, e.g.66). Our study species was the striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius), an omnivorous small rodent common in central and Eastern Europe and Asia. Striped field mice are known to successfully colonise urban environments (e.g.67). Differences between rural and urban striped field mice have been reported regarding diet composition (e.g.68), morphological traits (e.g.69,70), demography and population dynamics (e.g.71), genetic structure and genetic differentiation (e.g.72), suggesting that striped field mice do occur in both environments and adjust to urban habitats. Striped field mice thus make a suitable study species for investigating potential intra-specific behavioural differences between rural and urban dwellers. Specifically, we hypothesised that (1) rural and urban populations differ in mean trait expression of spatial exploration and boldness, i.e. in animal personality, and (2) in flexibility in these two traits.

We predicted (i) that striped field mice would show consistent between-individual differences in boldness and spatial exploration. Furthermore, we predicted (ii) that urban individuals would show higher levels of boldness and spatial exploration compared to their rural conspecifics and that (iii) trait expression increases with increased sealed surface, our proxy for urbanisation. Lastly, we expected (iv) behavioural flexibility to be more pronounced in urban animals compared to rural conspecifics.

Results

We captured 96 striped field mice, 55 of which in the rural sites and 41 in the urban sites; of these, 56 individuals were trapped and tested multiple times (average ± SD number of tests per individual: 1.75 ± 0.74). At dataset level, both spatial exploration (R = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.16–0.56) and boldness (R = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.02–0.45) were repeatable over time (Fig. 1 and Table S4 in the supplementary material). While habitat-specific repeatabilities were based on small sample sizes, they suggested that both behavioural traits might be more repeatable in rural than urban habitats (see Fig. 1 showing indices and Fig. S2 and Table S4 in the Supplementary Material showing original estimates).

Figure 1
figure1

Repeatabilities of composite behavioural variables for striped field mice (Apodemus agrarius) quantified in short behavioural tests on-site. Asterisks represent significant deviation from zero.

Urban striped field mice were characterised by higher spatial exploration (β = 0.73 ± 0.18, t = 4.07, P < 0.001—Fig. 2 and Table S1 in the Supplementary Material) and boldness (β = 0.55 ± 0.18, t = 3.10, P = 0.003—Fig. 2 and Table S1 in the Supplementary Material) than rural conspecifics. Spatial exploration and boldness also increased with increasing sealed surface, our proxy for urbanisation (spatial exploration: β = 0.02 ± 0.01, t = 3.08, P = 0.003; boldness: β = 0.02 ± 0.005, t = 4.15, P < 0.001—Fig. 2), although when restricting the analysis to the urban subset only boldness increased with increasing sealed surface (β = 0.04 ± 0.012, t = 2.94, P < 0.003—Table S6 in the Supplementary Material). Results for the single behavioural variables are reported in the Supplementary Material (Tables S1 and S2).

Figure 2
figure2

Spatial exploration (a) and boldness (d) of 96 striped field mice (Apodemus agrarius) increase with increasing percentage of sealed surface in a 1 km buffer (i.e., urbanisation). Predictions (line) and confidence bands (grey shading) are based on LMMs including all animals. The boxplots show spatial exploration (b) and boldness (e) for the pooled populations of rural (N = 55) and urban (N = 41) striped field mice analysed in the present study. The boxplots (c) and (f) show similar patterns for spatial exploration and boldness for pooled populations of rural and urban striped field mice tested within the same study year. These data are not included in the main analyses.

Individual intercepts and slopes differed between rural and urban animals for both spatial exploration (intercept: W = 154, P < 0.001; slope: W = 490, P = 0.026) and boldness (intercept: W = 208, P = 0.009; slope: W = 482, P = 0.037), with urban individuals having steeper slopes compared to rural conspecifics (Table S5 in the Supplementary Material). Results for the single behavioural variables are reported in the Supplementary Material (Table S5).

Given the potential confounding effect of sampling year and rural/urban habitat, we conducted an additional analysis on a separate dataset that was collected at a subset of the original urban and rural sites within the same year (i.e., without a year confound). This corroborative analysis showed a consistent pattern in behavioural responses and PC components spatial exploration and boldness (Fig. 2, Table S7). Spatial exploration was higher in urban animals (β = 0.67 ± 0.22, t = 3.09, P = 0.003—Tables S11 and S12 in the Supplementary Material) also when considering the first round of testing only, when the arena was entirely novel to all animals.

Discussion

Based on repeated behavioural assessment, we found that boldness, spatial exploration, and behavioural flexibility in striped field mice differ between rural and urban habitats. Overall, striped field mice exhibited significant repeatability in most behavioural responses measured, indicating individual consistency over time in traits related to boldness and spatial exploration. According to our predictions, behavioural responses connected to spatial exploration and boldness significantly increased with level of urbanisation. Also, urban animals showed higher levels of reversible behavioural plasticity.

As predicted, urban striped field mice were more explorative than conspecifics from rural sites. Spatial exploration is likely to be a key trait for all stages involved in the colonisation of a new environment (e.g.9). As urbanization increases, it creates fragmented landscapes that only highly active and explorative animals are able to reach (e.g.73,74). Thus, there should be an environmental filter favouring explorative individuals to arrive in the urbanised areas in the first place. Explorative individuals commonly use larger home ranges (e.g.75) and disperse farther from their natal area (e.g.35,55,62). They are also more likely to discover and exploit important resources (e.g.76). Highly explorative individuals would then be favoured not only in the arrival stage of colonization, but also during establishment and increase due to the continued exposure to novelty (e.g., food type and availability, space and habitat alterations, heterogeneity in disturbance3,9). The composition of urban populations could thus stem from a subset of more explorative and active individuals colonizing urban fragmented areas (e.g.64,74). Spatial exploration scaled positively with the degree of urbanization only when considering the complete dataset, but this effect was no longer present when analysing the urban data only. However, most of the single behavioural responses loading on the composite variable spatial exploration scaled positively with sealed surface. It is therefore unclear whether this is an effect of reduced statistical power, and/or the different weight that the single variables carried to the composite score of spatial exploration. Alternatively, animals with more pronounced explorative tendencies might be more likely to disperse and colonise cities but then the degree of spatial exploration might no longer be favoured within urbanised environments.

Predator numbers tend to increase with urbanization, whereas the predation pressure on urban prey populations is often reported to be lower than in nonurban areas—a phenomenon known as the predation paradox77,78. Urban areas are in fact being colonised not only by small rodents, but also by many of their predators, such as foxes, coyotes, stoats and birds of prey, that even achieve higher population densities than are found under natural conditions (e.g.79,80). In the present study, urban striped field mice were bolder than rural conspecifics and boldness scaled positively with the degree of urbanization. Reported results of increasing boldness with increasing urbanisation are consistent with the results of previous studies, which suggested that a higher risk-taking tendency is adaptive during invasion of novel environments (e.g.65,81, but see82). Higher boldness, defined as an individual’s reaction to any risky situation, including encounters with predators and humans17 is thus likely to help coping with the threats and challenges posed by “city life”, from traffic and other human disturbances to responses to higher numbers of predators. Indeed, increased boldness along the rural–urban gradient may arise as a consequence of selective pressures precluding shy, fearful individuals from colonizing urban areas (e.g.63,64,83). Bold individuals are also more likely to arrive in new areas because they disperse further and pass through the environmental filter of potentially hostile environments. It is not clear, though, whether high boldness would be always equally adaptive in the establishment and increase stages of the colonisation (e.g.84). The dangerous niche hypothesis85 proposes that heightened caution is adaptive when novel stimuli are likely dangerous, e.g. if toxic foods, traps or a high level of predation risk characterize an individual’s environment84,85. Thus, while reduced risk-taking tendencies may be adaptive during the colonization of cities (e.g.86,87), persisting there might necessitate more cautious behaviour84. Differential selective pressure in different stages of colonisation might explain why in some cases urban individuals show similar risk-taking to their rural counterparts (e.g.82,84,88). Long-term and population genetics data alongside behavioural assessments are needed to assess if and how such a shift in favoured conditions takes place.

Behavioural flexibility implies a rapid response to novel environmental conditions and presumably allows animals to exploit a wider variety of ecological contexts89. Urban striped field mice showed higher levels of behavioural flexibility in spatial exploration and boldness. Exploration has a positive and direct effect on habituation (e.g.16), one of the most common forms of behavioural plasticity (e.g.90). Habituation to novel stimuli is also considered a simple form of learning (e.g.90), which is also often linked to exploratory tendencies and boldness (e.g.91,92). Exploratory behaviour is an important means to acquire information about environmental properties and make later decisions (e.g.93,94). Being able to habituate faster would favour the colonisation and the establishment of new human-altered environments. In the same way, making rapid assessments of what constitutes a threat in the novel environment and what can instead be safely ignored would prove advantageous, effectively lowering stress levels and allowing optimal resource allocation (e.g., of attention or vigilance). Thus, colonization of urbanised habitats could be facilitated if the dispersal ability of explorative individuals is coupled with a greater potential to habituate (e.g.16,55). This being the case, being bold and having a higher tolerance to disturbance would certainly favour urban success, but being too bold might prove maladaptive and considerably shorten an individual’s life-expectancy (e.g.28). Similarly, consistent high levels of spatial exploration carry costs, for example in increased chance of picking up parasites (e.g.95,96), running into predators or even not reacting fast enough to predator attacks (e.g.75,97). Also, discovering and exploiting novel resources, considered one of the main advantages of being explorative and bold, might lead to poisonous/poisoned food (e.g.98). Therefore, being able to flexibly adjust the behavioural response would indeed prove beneficial (e.g.99), especially in the case of a small mammal subject to intense predatory pressure, and potentially exposed to poisons intended for other rodents’ management and control (e.g.100). The ability to adjust might explain why in our study the repeatabilities of boldness-related behaviours on urban sites were low. Further, sample size was likely affecting the repeatability at habitat-level (rural/urban). Similarly, previous studies reported more variation in the expression of measured behavioural responses in urban individuals compared to rural ones (e.g.22,84,101). For example, Lehrer et al.101 found increased variance of vigilance behaviour in woodchucks (Marmota monax) along the rural–urban gradient. They suggested that urbanization increases spatial heterogeneity in perceived predation risk for wildlife species101. When the environment is subject to a relatively high rate of change and variability, enhanced behavioural flexibility is a key factor in determining an individual’s fitness (e.g.9,102).

We acknowledge that comparing rural and urban data from consecutive years might result in a potential confound between study year and study areas, if, for example, weather conditions which impact on food availability varied between years, and these in turn would favour different behavioural types (e.g.29,103). However, such alterations in abiotic conditions can also occur at the same time at a smaller local scale (e.g.104,105). Additionally, cities present specific microclimatic conditions that make them more similar to other cities than to the natural landscape surrounding them (e.g.73,106). Urban features such as reduced land and vegetation cover and energy use, along with the extent and configuration of structures such as buildings, streets, and parks shape weather patterns and air quality, altering atmospheric flows, humidity, precipitation, and temperatures (e.g.106,107), which are usually warmer than in rural areas (e.g. 106,108,109). Such ecological differences are an intrinsic part of all comparisons between rural and urban environments. We are confident that the observed differences between rural and urban populations are robust patterns because an additional analysis carried out on a separate dataset from a study conducted in the same rural and urban sites within the same year indicates that the same patterns are maintained when data are collected during the same season and under similar conditions (or as similar as they can be, given the caveats described above).

At present, we are unable to determine which mechanisms underlie the observed differences in spatial exploration and boldness between rural and urban striped field mice. Sol et al.9 suggested three potential mechanisms that would explain the widespread patterns of behavioural adjustments to urbanisation: (1) higher behavioural plasticity in urban individuals compared to rural ones, (2) non-random sorting (only some behavioural types could successfully colonize novel environments), and (3) evolutionary change via divergent selection. Whilst there is a substantial body of research reporting behavioural modifications in urban wildlife, it is often unknown whether the observed behaviours are inherently plastic or the product of genetic adaptations3. A genetic heritable base is required for any focal trait that undergoes selective pressures; numerous studies have shown that consistent behavioural traits do have a heritable component, and that natural selection can act on them (e.g.47,52). However, studies assessing such pressures or fitness-related aspects of different behavioural types in the context of urbanisation are still rare (but see e.g.110).

Further data on the degree of genetic isolation of urban populations and the direction of gene flow between rural and urban areas are also needed to assess whether constant influx of preferentially bolder behavioural types into urban populations occurs110. It has been suggested that different behavioural types may be favoured at different stages of the urbanisation process (e.g.9,110). Interpretation of findings and insights into apparently mixed results will benefit from a precise understanding of how advanced the colonization process is for the target species. Historical trapping data along with genetic analyses to determine genetic distance across neighbouring populations can provide valuable insights. Future studies adopting a common garden approach will shed light on whether animals originating from areas with different degrees of urbanisation yet born and raised in the same conditions display genetically-based differences in personality traits (e.g.65). Conversely, if the behavioural differences that arise along the urban gradient are the consequence of behavioural plasticity, it would be interesting to investigate whether behavioural plasticity itself is heritable and selected for in the urban landscape (e.g.9). Lastly, it will be interesting to investigate how these behavioural traits link to other, slower-evolving aspects, like physiological and morphological adaptations (e.g.83,110,111).

In conclusion, this study suggests that behavioural adjustments can play a functional role in coping with urbanisation, one of the most widespread human-induced environmental changes. Our results are congruent with the interpretation that urbanization might affect the distribution of individually consistent behaviours, favouring individuals with specific personality traits and behavioural flexibility. To our knowledge, this is one of the first empirical studies testing a general hypothesis on individuals showing behavioural differences in connection to urbanisation in a small, non-commensal mammal species. Findings are consistent with previous literature on birds and larger mammals, suggesting an ubiquitous response to human-altered environments across taxa. Urbanisation may therefore act as a selective force driving the evolution of behavioural and phenotypic differences between urban and rural populations22. Cities provide a natural laboratory for understanding which role human activity plays in the reciprocal interactions between ecological and evolutionary processes, since the accelerated rates and increased magnitude of landscape-level changes mark them as hotspots of contemporary evolution110,112. Urban environments proved to be suitable settings, not only to study how personality traits might influence the success in human-altered landscapes, but also to give insights into the complex relationship between behavioural consistency and plasticity. Additionally, the study of animal personality could help understanding how animals cope with human-induced rapid environmental change.

Methods

Study sites

The study was conducted in four different urban sites in Berlin (52° 31′ N, 13° 24′ E, area 891.1 km2), with varying degrees of anthropogenic influences, and five rural sites located in a region of NE-Germany called Uckermark (53° 35′ N, 13° 71′ E, area 3,058.2 km2). All sites were part of the CityScapeLabs and AgroScapeLabs experimental platforms (https://www.bbib.org). With over 3.5 million inhabitants and an area of 892 km2, Berlin is the largest and most populous district of Germany (https://www.statistik-portal.de/Statistik-Portal/gemeindeverz.asp?G=Berlin). Numerous green spaces are separated by dense residential and commercial developments. The Uckermark region is an intensively farmed area, with comparatively low human population densities (39/km2) (https://www.citypopulation.de). Urban sites varied in size between 0.75 and 1.16 ha and were characterized by heterogeneous vegetation including grassy areas, bushes and small trees. The rural trapping sites were fallow lands between arable fields, which varied in size between 0.85 and 1.66 ha and were characterized by heterogeneous vegetation composed of grassy areas streaked with nettles, bushes and trees. Rural and urban trapping sites were on average 102.6 ± 3.7 km apart. Urban sites were on average 13.2 ± 6.6 km apart from each other, while rural sites were on average 9.5 ± 5.8 km apart. Striped field mice have an average home range size of 2,737 ± 2,046 m2, an average core area of 600 ± 446 m2, and an average daily distance travelled of 696.6 ± 311.8 m60,61. During our trapping, it never happened that individuals trapped in one site were found in another. We therefore consider a transfer from one site to the other over the course of the study to be extremely unlikely. We used a sealing index, i.e. the coverage of natural soil with artificial impervious surface (e.g. buildings and paved roads), as a proxy of the degree of urbanisation in each site. Sealed surface closely corresponds to other urbanisation indices, such as human population density, disturbance by humans and pets, noise and light pollution (e.g.113,114). The index was calculated for a buffer around each study site with radius of 1 km. Sealed surface of Berlin sites was calculated within the CityscapeLabs project on the basis of the biotope mapping of Berlin113,115. Sealed surface of rural sites was calculated with QGIS116.

Capture-mark-recapture

At each site, we used a capture-mark-recapture approach with 44–56 multiple-capture live-traps (Ugglan Special Traps n. 1–2, Grahnab AB, Hillerstorp, Sweden) set in a regular grid of 10-m distance between traps. Traps were pre-baited with oat flakes and apples for two nights. Once activated, they were checked every morning and afternoon. At the urban sites, trapping was conducted in two sessions with 7–9 days between sessions. Each trapping session lasted approximately 72 h with 4–5 trappings in the first session and 2–3 in the second session. At the rural sites, trapping was performed continuously for several weeks and tests were repeated upon recapture of the individual. The average inter-trial interval was 11.3 ± 13.2 days between first and second test and 10.8 ± 6.5 between successive tests. Upon first capture, individuals were sexed, weighed, marked individually with a unique fur-marking and a set of standard morphometrical measures was taken. First behavioural tests were performed either at first capture (without any prior handling) or at first recapture. In total, 96 individual striped field mice were tested in this study. Of these, 40 could only be tested once and 56 were tested multiple times (of these, 41 individuals were tested twice, 14 individuals were tested 3 times and 1 individual was tested 4 times) for a total of 168 tests. Data collection took place from August to October 2016 (rural sites) and from July to September 2017 (urban sites).

Behavioural tests

For behavioural testing, we modified standard laboratory tests that are commonly used in personality studies of small mammals (e.g.18,117) and combined them60 to be executable directly on site, in one run and without prior handling. The set-up combined and adjusted the set-ups of the dark light test118 and the open field test119. These combined set-ups are used to assess boldness and spatial exploration in a novel environment (e.g.46). These tests have been developed for rodents (e.g.119,120,121,122) and yield biologically meaningful measures of what is intended to measure (e.g.36,60,61,123). Albeit a test developed for one species/taxon is not necessarily appropriate as a test for another (e.g.44,45,124) the open-field test is a classical test for rodents and behaviours measured in this test have been ecologically validated in many species (e.g.123), including the taxon of this study61.

The dark–light test measures willingness of individuals to leave a dark and enclosed shelter to enter an unknown, bright and potentially risky area. The open field test was developed to specifically target rodents’ aversion to brightly lit and open spaces125, and thigmotaxis, i.e. a tendency to remain close to vertical/peripheral objects instead of in open spaces122, presumably to reduce the possibility of predation126. It quantifies an individual’s exploratory activity and risk-taking propensity by assuming different levels of perceived risk in different arena parts (e.g. 60,127). The open space of the test arena is unprotected which, in the natural environment, would leave a rodent open to overhead predator attacks122. As small mammals, striped field mice are vulnerable to both terrestrial and avian predators (e.g.128,129,130), and being on the move (i.e. more visible) or exposed in an open and bright clearing, makes them extremely vulnerable to predation. Leaving a dark, enclosed, protected shelter to enter such a space is an indication of an individual’s propensity to take risks. While some critics would prefer to distinguish between the general activity and the act of exploration, for spatial exploration, especially in a primarily-non-visual animals it might not be possible (e.g.46). In order to explore a space, rodents have to move through it, as they mainly rely on their olfaction and whisker-mediated touch system to gather environmental information (e.g.131,132,133,134,135,136), and transmit tactile information for object and texture recognition (e.g.137,138,139) as well as spatial information such as localization in space (e.g.134,140), as they sweep the environment by intrinsic muscles132).

In their natural environment, small mammals that scored high in the open field test were also the ones that had significantly larger exploratory home ranges, moved greater daily distances, occupied larger home ranges and were more active (e.g.60,61,123). Also, small mammals’ higher activity levels in the open field correlate with information acquisition and use (e.g.127), use of resources and foraging strategies (e.g.36), and mating and reproductive decisions (e.g.141). The behaviours assessed in the dark–light test and the open-field test are considered adaptive in the natural environment and variance in the responses can provide ecologically-relevant indicators of behavioural traits like risk-taking propensity or boldness and spatial exploration tendency122.

The test set-up we used here consists of a dark plastic tube of 32 cm length and 15 cm diameter with swing doors at both ends connected the trap in which the animal was found to the PVC open field arena (130 cm Ø, 30 cm high) (Figure S1 in the Supplementary Material). Once the animal entered the tube we closed the external swing door; after 60 s we opened the internal swing door and measured the subject’s latency to enter into the open field arena with the head (‘latency head’) and the full body without tail (‘latency body’). If animals did not leave the trap within 1 min, they were gently guided into the dark tube (53% of all performed tests). If the animals did not leave the dark tube within five minutes, we set the latency to 300 s (17% of all performed tests) and animals were gently guided out of the tube into the arena. When the animal entered the circular arena, we closed the tube door and the open field test started.

The floor of the open-field arena was virtually divided into 16 areas of equal surface, although peripheral sections were considered safer than the more exposed central ones. We recorded each animal’s behaviour for five minutes. We measured the following parameters: latency to enter the central area with the full body (excluding tail), time spent active (that is, moving around the arena) or inactive, number of crossings into the central area with the whole body (without tail), number of jumps, number of explored sections. We ensured high inter-observer reliability with test trials prior to data collection with individuals not involved in the study. If animals did not enter the central area within five min, the latency to enter the centre was set to the maximum of 300 s (3.6% of all trials). We conducted all tests by direct observation, between 08.00 and 18.00 h, in the shade and only in rain-free periods. At the end of the test, animals were released at the site of capture.

Statistical analyses

We estimated repeatability of the recorded behavioural variables, a population-specific metric to quantify inter-individual phenotypic differences across time or contexts, using an LMM with individual as a random factor142 using the R package rptR143. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) of repeatabilities for each variable by parametric bootstrapping (N = 1,000 simulation iterations)144. P values were calculated based on 1,000 permutations.

In a first step of the analyses, we compared each behavioural variable across rural and urban populations, since the proportion of sealed surface was very similar for all rural sites. We used repeated measures linear mixed effects models (LMM) and generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMMs) fitted by restricted maximum-likelihood. Individual identity was added as a random factor, specified as random intercept, in each model to control for non-independent repeated measures of the same individual. In prior analyses, we included trapping site as an additional random factor. Since this factor did not improve model fit, according to associated likelihood ratio test (P < 0.001)145, we retained more parsimonious models without trapping site. In a second step, we used the same statistical approach to evaluate the relationship between behavioural variables and sealed surface as a proxy for urbanisation. This allowed us to control for the two different sampling years and to investigate possible gradual changes along the rural–urban gradient. In a third step, we used the same statistical approach to evaluate the relationship between behavioural variables and sealed surface as a proxy for urbanisation within the urban plots using only the data from urban animals. In all models we added two temporal control variables as fixed effects: DayMCI—the experimental day mean-centred for the individual and the study period to control for variable time periods between repeated tests of individuals and DayMCP—the experimental day mean-centred for the study year to control for potential seasonal variation. Both temporal control variables were also added as quadratic terms to allow for non-linear relationships. Sex of the individual was also added as a fixed effect. We included all possible two-way interactions between the explanatory variables. We excluded all non-significant quadratic terms, interactions, and the fixed effect sex, i.e. all control predictors, based on stepwise backward model selection using log-likelihood ratio tests comparing nested models145. Latencies were log-transformed, and the proportion of time intervals animal spent active (from here on general activity) was arcsine-square-root transformed. The number of explored sections was turned into a binary variable of all sections visited or not. Visual inspection of residual plots did not reveal any obvious deviations from homoscedasticity or normality. We used the R packages lme4146 and nlme147. We report these results in the Supplementary Material (Table S1 and Table S2).

We used principal component analyses (PCA) followed by oblimin rotation148 to reduce the number of dependent variables. We retained principal components with Eigenvalues > 1 (Kaiser–Guttman criterion149). The PCA returned two main components that accounted for 69% of the variance (PC1 = 35%, Eigenvalue = 1.75; PC2 = 34%, Eigenvalue = 1.57, Table S3 in the Supplementary Material). The first component best explained the variance associated with the number of crossings, jumps and the proportion of time spent active in the arena; it was thus named ‘spatial exploration’ because it explained the general exploration activity combined with movement in the arena. The second component was associated with the latencies to leave the dark tube, enter the central part of the arena and the number of crossings; it was thus named ‘boldness’ because it accounted for each individual’s risk-taking propensity. For each component, we followed the same statistical procedure as described above.

Due to the biases involved in point estimates of random slopes and intercepts using restricted maximum likelihood linear mixed effects models150, we followed a Bayesian approach to estimate individual differences in behavioural traits and reversible plasticity in behavioural traits over time (R package MCMCglmm, Markov-chain Monte Carlo generalized linear mixed models151), which are less biased and allow better estimates of uncertainty. We fitted each behaviour as the response and included DayMCI as a control predictor, fitted as fixed effect. We built a random intercept-slope model with DayMCI fitted as a covariance term to estimate within-individual plasticity of behaviour over time. We used slightly informative priors by dividing the total phenotypic variance of the behavioural trait by the number of random effects (n = 2) in the model and set a low degree of belief (nu = 0.002)151. We used 1,010,000 iterations, with a burn-in of 5,000 and a thinning interval of 100. These parameter settings resulted in low temporal autocorrelation between estimates of subsequent models, which were assessed by graphical diagnostics. Subsequently, we extracted individual random intercepts (i.e. best linear unbiased predictors, BLUPs) and individual random slopes (i.e. within-individual reversible plasticity over time) and compared these traits between urban and rural animals with a Mann–Whitney-U test. The accepted significance level was ≤ 0.05. All data analyses were conducted with R version 3.2.3 (R Core Team 2015).

Corroborative additional analyses

Year versus site effects

Given the potential confounding effect of sampling year and rural/urban habitat, we used data from a different study to ascertain whether differences in behavioural patterns could be traced to different environmental conditions in different years or could instead be attributed to the habitat characteristics. In this follow-up study we trapped and tested 42 rural and 25 urban striped field mice in 3 rural and 4 urban sites. These sites were selected among the ones in which the data collection for this work was carried out. Trapping and testing protocols reflect those described above, with small discrepancies that preclude adding these data to the main analysis. In this part of the study we only tested each animal once. These data are used only to ascertain that a similar pattern is present when sampling is carried out in the same year, and are not added to the main dataset that is described in the rest of this work. Patterns are shown in Fig. 2 and Table S7.

Repeated testing and habituation

Since behavioural tests were repeated a third or fourth time for rural animals, and this could have affected the results and inflated the repeatability estimates, we ran additional analyses with a subset of the data, using only the first two tests for all animals. We compared each behavioural variable across rural and urban populations, and between behavioural variables and sealed surface as a proxy for urbanisation, using the same statistical procedure as described above for the full dataset. Results are reported in the supplementary material (Tables S8, S9 and S10).

Spatial exploration

Since some definitions of ‘exploration’ refers to reactions to novel situations (e.g.17) and our main analysis includes also repeated measures of the same animals, we compared PC scores and single variables loading on them of rural and urban individuals during the first trial only, to ensure that the measured responses applied to the unfamiliar arena. We used linear models (LMs) and added MCP as fixed factor. Results are reported in the supplementary material (Tables S11 and S12).

Ethical note

Animal capture and behavioural tests were conducted under the permission of the “Landesamt für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz Brandenburg” (reference number: LUGV_7RO-4610/34 + 5#86908/2011; V3-2347–44-2011 and RO7/SOB-0998A-C), the “Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt” (reference number: IIIB2/OA/AS/G1394), and the “Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales” (reference number: G 0072/16). Experiments were performed in accordance with all applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the use of animals, including the ASAB/ABS guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Captured animals were released at the capture site directly after testing.

Data availability

Data are available as supplementary material.

References

  1. 1.

    Grimm, N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    McKinney, M. L. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52, 883 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lowry, H., Lill, A. & Wong, B. B. M. Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments: behavioural responses to urban environments. Biol. Rev. 88, 537–549 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sih, A. Understanding variation in behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: a conceptual overview. Anim. Behav. 85, 1077–1088 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sih, A., Ferrari, M. C. O. & Harris, D. J. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: behaviour and evolution. Evol. Appl. 4, 367–387 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lapiedra, O., Chejanovski, Z. & Kolbe, J. J. Urbanization and biological invasion shape animal personalities. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 592–603 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sih, A., Stamps, J., Yang, L. H., McElreath, R. & Ramenofsky, M. Behavior as a key component of integrative biology in a human-altered world. Integr. Comp. Biol. 50, 934–944 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Alberti, M. Eco-evolutionary dynamics in an urbanizing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 114–126 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sol, D., Lapiedra, O. & González-Lagos, C. Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. Anim. Behav. 85, 1101–1112 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Tuomainen, U. & Candolin, U. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol. Rev. 86, 640–657 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Seferta, A., Guay, P.-J., Marzinotto, E. & Lefebvre, L. Learning differences between feral pigeons and zenaida doves: the role of neophobia and human proximity. Ethology 107, 281–293 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sol, D., Bacher, S., Reader, S. M. & Lefebvre, L. Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. Am. Nat. 172, S63–S71 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sol, D., Duncan, R. P., Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P. & Lefebvre, L. Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 5460–5465 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Webster, S. J. & Lefebvre, L. Problem solving and neophobia in a columbiform–passeriform assemblage in Barbados. Anim. Behav. 62, 23–32 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lowry, H., Lill, A. & Wong, B. B. M. Tolerance of auditory disturbance by an avian urban adapter, the noisy miner: tolerance of auditory disturbance by an avian urban adapter. Ethology 117, 490–497 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rodríguez-Prieto, I., Martín, J. & Fernández-Juricic, E. Individual variation in behavioural plasticity: direct and indirect effects of boldness, exploration and sociability on habituation to predators in lizards. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 266–273 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Réale, D., Reader, S. M., Sol, D., McDougall, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 82, 291–318 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gosling, S. D. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research?. Psychol. Bull. 127, 45–86 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Koolhaas, J. M. et al. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 23, 925–935 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sih, A., Cote, J., Evans, M., Fogarty, S. & Pruitt, J. Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes: ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol. Lett. 15, 278–289 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wolf, M. & Weissing, F. J. Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 452–461 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hardman, S. I. & Dalesman, S. Repeatability and degree of territorial aggression differs among urban and rural great tits (Parus major). Sci. Rep. 8, 5042 (2018).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wilson, D. S., Coleman, K., Clark, A. B. & Biederman, L. Shy-bold continuum in pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus): an ecological study of a psychological trait. J. Comp. Psychol. 107, 250–260 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wilson, A. D. M. & Godin, J.-G.J. Boldness and intermittent locomotion in the bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus. Behav. Ecol. 21, 57–62 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ward, A. J. W., Hart, P. J. B. & Webster, M. M. Boldness is influenced by social context in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behaviour 144, 351–371 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dammhahn, M. & Almeling, L. Is risk taking during foraging a personality trait? A field test for cross-context consistency in boldness. Anim. Behav. 84, 1131–1139 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sih, A., Bell, A. M., Johnson, J. C. & Ziemba, R. E. Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Q. Rev. Biol. 79, 241–277 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Smith, B. R. & Blumstein, D. T. Fitness consequences of personality: a meta-analysis. Behav. Ecol. 19, 448–455 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., Drent, P. J. & Tinbergen, J. M. Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 847–852 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sinn, D. L., Apiolaza, L. A. & Moltschaniwskyj, N. A. Heritability and fitness-related consequences of squid personality traits. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1437–1447 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ariyomo, T. O., Carter, M. & Watt, P. J. Heritability of boldness and aggressiveness in the zebrafish. Behav. Genet. 43, 161–167 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    van Oers, K., de Jong, G., Drent, P. J. & van Noordwijk, A. J. A genetic analysis of avian personality traits: correlated response to artificial selection. Behav. Genet. 34, 611–619 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Réale, D. & Festa-Bianchet, M. Predator-induced natural selection on temperament in bighorn ewes. Anim. Behav. 65, 463–470 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Grand, T. C. Risk-taking behaviour and the timing of life history events: consequences of body size and season. Oikos 85, 467 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Fraser, D. F., Gilliam, J. F., Daley, M. J., Le, A. N. & Skalski, G. T. Explaining leptokurtic movement distributions: intrapopulation variation in boldness and exploration. Am. Nat. 158, 124–135 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mazza, V., Jacob, J., Dammhahn, M., Zaccaroni, M. & Eccard, J. A. Individual variation in cognitive style reflects foraging and anti-predator strategies in a small mammal. Sci. Rep. 9, 10157 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Patrick, S. C. & Weimerskirch, H. Personality, foraging and fitness consequences in a long lived seabird. PLoS ONE 9, e87269 (2014).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brown, J. S. & Kotler, B. P. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation: foraging cost of predation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 999–1014 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Godin, J. G. & Dugatkin, L. A. Female mating preference for bold males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93, 10262–10267 (1996).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ariyomo, T. O. & Watt, P. J. Disassortative mating for boldness decreases reproductive success in the guppy. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1320–1326 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Collins, S. M., Hatch, S. A., Elliott, K. H. & Jacobs, S. R. Boldness, mate choice and reproductive success in Rissa tridactyla. Anim. Behav. 154, 67–74 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mettke-Hofmann, C., Winkler, H. & Leisler, B. The Significance of ecological factors for exploration and neophobia in parrots. Ethology 108, 249–272 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Burstal, J., Clulow, S., Colyvas, K., Kark, S. & Griffin, A. S. Radiotracking invasive spread: are common mynas more active and exploratory on the invasion front?. Biol Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02269-7 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Carter, A. J., Feeney, W. E., Marshall, H. H., Cowlishaw, G. & Heinsohn, R. Animal personality: what are behavioural ecologists measuring?. Biol. Rev. 88, 465–475 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Perals, D., Griffin, A. S., Bartomeus, I. & Sol, D. Revisiting the open-field test: what does it really tell us about animal personality?. Anim. Behav. 123, 69–79 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Cote, J., Fogarty, S., Weinersmith, K., Brodin, T. & Sih, A. Personality traits and dispersal tendency in the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis ). Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 1571–1579 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., Drent, P. J., van Oers, K. & van Noordwijk, A. J. Repeatability and heritability of exploratory behaviour in great tits from the wild. Anim. Behav. 64, 929–938 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Dingemanse, N. J. et al. Individual experience and evolutionary history of predation affect expression of heritable variation in fish personality and morphology. Proc. R. Soc. B. 276, 1285–1293 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Careau, V. et al. Genetic correlation between resting metabolic rate and exploratory behaviour in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): pace-of-life in a muroid rodent. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2153–2163 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Korsten, P., van Overveld, T., Adriaensen, F. & Matthysen, E. Genetic integration of local dispersal and exploratory behaviour in a wild bird. Nat. Commun. 4, 2362 (2013).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Drent, P. J., van Oers, K. & van Noordwijk, A. J. Realized heritability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 45–51 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Dingemanse, N. J. & Réale, D. Natural selection and animal personality. Behavior 142, 1159–1184 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Both, C., Dingemanse, N. J., Drent, P. J. & Tinbergen, J. M. Pairs of extreme avian personalities have highest reproductive success. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 667–674 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Mutzel, A., Dingemanse, N. J., Araya-Ajoy, Y. G. & Kempenaers, B. Parental provisioning behaviour plays a key role in linking personality with reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131019 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., van Noordwijk, A. J., Rutten, A. L. & Drent, P. J. Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 741–747 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Haughland, D. L. & Larsen, K. W. Exploration correlates with settlement: red squirrel dispersal in contrasting habitats. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 1024–1034 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Alford, R. A., Brown, G. P., Schwarzkopf, L., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Comparisons through time and space suggest rapid evolution of dispersal behaviour in an invasive species. Wildl. Res. 36, 23 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Hoset, K. S. et al. Natal dispersal correlates with behavioral traits that are not consistent across early life stages. Behav. Ecol. 22, 176–183 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Debeffe, L. et al. Exploration as a key component of natal dispersal: dispersers explore more than philopatric individuals in roe deer. Anim. Behav. 86, 143–151 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    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 189, 647–660 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Schirmer, A., Hoffmann, J., Eccard, J. A. & Dammhahn, M. My niche: individual spatial niche specialization affects within- and between-species interactions. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192211 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Duckworth, R. A. & Badyaev, A. V. Coupling of dispersal and aggression facilitates the rapid range expansion of a passerine bird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 15017–15022 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Carrete, M. & Tella, J. L. Behavioral correlations associated with fear of humans differ between rural and urban burrowing owls. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 54 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Evans, J., Boudreau, K. & Hyman, J. Behavioural syndromes in urban and rural populations of song sparrows. Ethology 116, 588–595 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Miranda, A. C., Schielzeth, H., Sonntag, T. & Partecke, J. Urbanization and its effects on personality traits: a result of microevolution or phenotypic plasticity?. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2634–2644 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Reil, D. et al. Puumala hantavirus infections in bank vole populations: host and virus dynamics in Central Europe. BMC Ecol. 17, 9 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Andrzejewski, R., Babińska-Werka, J., Gliwicz, J. & Goszczyński, J. Synurbization processes in population of Apodemus agrarius. I. Characteristics of populations in an urbanization gradient. Acta Theriol. 23, 341–358 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Babińska-Werka, J. Food of the striped field mouse in different types of urban green areas. Acta Theriol. 26, 285–299 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Liro, A. Variation in weights of body and internal organs of the field mouse in a gradient of urban habitats. Acta Theriol. 30, 359–377 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Sikorski, M. D. Craniometric variation of Apodemus agrarius (Pallas, 1771) in urban green areas. Acta Theriol. 27, 71–81 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Babińska-Werka, J., Gliwicz, J. & Goszczyński, J. Demographic processes in an urban population of the striped field mouse. Acta Theriol. 26, 275–283 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Gortat, T., Rutkowski, R., Gryczynska-Siemiatkowska, A., Kozakiewicz, A. & Kozakiewicz, M. Genetic structure in urban and rural populations of Apodemus agrarius in Poland. Mamm. Biol. 78, 171–177 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    McKinney, M. L. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127, 247–260 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Moule, H., Michelangeli, M., Thompson, M. B. & Chapple, D. G. The influence of urbanization on the behaviour of an Australian lizard and the presence of an activity-exploratory behavioural syndrome: impact of urbanization on the delicate skink. J. Zool. 298, 103–111 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Boon, A. K., Réale, D. & Boutin, S. Personality, habitat use, and their consequences for survival in North American red squirrels Tamiasciurus hudsonicus. Oikos 117, 1321–1328 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O. & Weissing, F. J. Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature 447, 581–584 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Fischer, J. D., Cleeton, S. H., Lyons, T. P. & Miller, J. R. Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. Bioscience 62, 809–818 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Shochat, E. Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos 106, 622–626 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments: urban carnivores. J. Zool. 287, 1–23 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Kettel, E. F., Gentle, L. K., Quinn, J. L. & Yarnell, R. W. The breeding performance of raptors in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. J. Ornithol. 159, 1–18 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Vines, A. & Lill, A. Boldness and urban dwelling in little ravens. Wildl. Res. 42, 590 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Uchida K, Shimamoto T, Yanagawa H, Koizumi I (2020) Comparison of multiple behavioral traits between urban and rural squirrels. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 1–10 (2020).

  83. 83.

    Atwell, J. W. et al. Boldness behavior and stress physiology in a novel urban environment suggest rapid correlated evolutionary adaptation. Behav. Ecol. 23, 960–969 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Bókony, V., Kulcsár, A., Tóth, Z. & Liker, A. Personality traits and behavioral syndromes in differently urbanized populations of house sparrows (Passer domesticus). PLoS ONE 7, e36639 (2012).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Greenberg, R. The Role of Neophobia and Neophilia in the Development of Innovative Behaviour of Birds. In Animal Innovation (eds Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N.) 175–196 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526223.003.0008.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    delBarco-Trillo, J. Shyer and larger bird species show more reduced fear of humans when living in urban environments. Biol. Lett. 14, 20170730 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Greggor, A. L., Clayton, N. S., Fulford, A. J. C. & Thornton, A. Street smart: faster approach towards litter in urban areas by highly neophobic corvids and less fearful birds. Anim. Behav. 117, 123–133 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Seress, G., Bókony, V., Heszberger, J. & Liker, A. Response to predation risk in urban and rural house sparrows: response to predation risk in house sparrows. Ethology 117, 896–907 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Rymer, T., Pillay, N. & Schradin, C. Extinction or survival? Behavioral flexibility in response to environmental change in the african striped mouse rhabdomys. Sustainability 5, 163–186 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Martin, J. G. A. & Réale, D. Temperament, risk assessment and habituation to novelty in eastern chipmunks Tamias striatus. Anim. Behav. 75, 309–318 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Carere, C. & Locurto, C. Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr. Zool. 57, 491–498 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Sih, A. & Del Giudice, M. Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: a behavioural ecology perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 2762–2772 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Mettke-Hofmann, C. & Gwinner, E. Differential assessment of environmental information in a migratory and a nonmigratory passerine. Anim. Behav. 68, 1079–1086 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Mettke-Hofmann, C., Rowe, K. C., Hayden, T. J. & Canoine, V. Effects of experience and object complexity on exploration in garden warblers (Sylvia borin). J Zool. 268, 405–413 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Boyer, N., Réale, D., Marmet, J., Pisanu, B. & Chapuis, J.-L. Personality, space use and tick load in an introduced population of Siberian chipmunks Tamias sibiricus. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 538–547 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Barber, I. & Dingemanse, N. J. Parasitism and the evolutionary ecology of animal personality. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 4077–4088 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Jones, K. A. & Godin, J.-G.J. Are fast explorers slow reactors? Linking personality type and anti-predator behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 625–632 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Sol, D., Griffin, A. S., Bartomeus, I. & Boyce, H. Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird. PLoS ONE 6, e19535 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Couchoux, C. & Cresswell, W. Personality constraints versus flexible antipredation behaviors: how important is boldness in risk management of redshanks (Tringa totanus) foraging in a natural system?. Behav. Ecol. 23, 290–301 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Patergnani, M. et al. Environmental influence on urban rodent bait consumption. J. Pest Sci. 83, 347–359 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Lehrer, E. W., Schooley, R. L. & Whittington, J. K. Survival and antipredator behavior of woodchucks (Marmota monax) along an urban-agricultural gradient. Can. J. Zool. 90, 12–21 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Niemelä, P. T., Vainikka, A., Forsman, J. T., Loukola, O. J. & Kortet, R. How does variation in the environment and individual cognition explain the existence of consistent behavioral differences?. Ecol. Evol. 3, 457–464 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Garamszegi, L. Z. et al. Among-year variation in the repeatability, within- and between-individual, and phenotypic correlations of behaviors in a natural population. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 2005–2017 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Stewart, I. D. & Oke, T. R. Local climate zones for urban temperature studies. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1879–1900 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Semenov, M., Donatelli, M., Stratonovitch, P., Chatzidaki, E. & Baruth, B. ELPIS: a dataset of local-scale daily climate scenarios for Europe. Clim. Res. 44, 3–15 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Hall, S. J. et al. Convergence of microclimate in residential landscapes across diverse cities in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 101–117 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Janković, V. A historical review of urban climatology and the atmospheres of the industrialized world: review of urban climatology and the atmospheres of the industrialized world. WIREs Clim. Change 4, 539–553 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Grimmond, S. Urbanization and global environmental change: local effects of urban warming. Geogr. J. 173, 83–88 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Oke, T. R. The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 108, 1–24 (1982).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Charmantier, A., Demeyrier, V., Lambrechts, M., Perret, S. & Grégoire, A. Urbanization is associated with divergence in pace-of-life in great tits. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 53 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Badyaev, A. V., Young, R. L., Oh, K. P. & Addison, C. Evolution on a local scale: developmental, functional, and genetic bases of divergence in bill form and associated changes in song structure between adjacent habitats. Evolution 62, 1951–1964 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. & Hunt, V. M. Urban driven phenotypic changes: empirical observations and theoretical implications for eco-evolutionary feedback. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160029 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Buchholz, S., Hannig, K., Möller, M. & Schirmel, J. Reducing management intensity and isolation as promising tools to enhance ground-dwelling arthropod diversity in urban grasslands. Urban Ecosyst. 21, 1139–1149 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Seress, G., Lipovits, Á, Bókony, V. & Czúni, L. Quantifying the urban gradient: a practical method for broad measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 131, 42–50 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz. Berlin Environmental Atlas—05.08 Biotopes (2016). https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?loginkey=showMap&mapId=k_fb_berlinbtk@senstadt. Accessed 15 Dec 2019.

  116. 116.

    GIS, E. A. v10. Environmental Systems Research Institute. Inc., Redlands, CA, USA (2011).

  117. 117.

    Herde, A. & Eccard, J. A. Consistency in boldness, activity and exploration at different stages of life. BMC Ecol. 13, 49 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Young, R. & Johnson, D. N. A fully automated light/dark apparatus useful for comparing anxiolytic agents. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 40, 739–743 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Hall, C. S. Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. J. Comp. Psychol. 18, 385–403 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Archer, J. Tests for emotionality in rats and mice: a review. Anim. Behav. 21, 205–235 (1973).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Walsh, R. N. & Cummins, R. A. The open-field test: a critical review. Psychol. Bull. 83, 482–504 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Cavigelli, S. A., Michael, K. C. & Ragan, C. M. Behavioral, physiological, and health biases in laboratory rodents: a basis for understanding mechanistic links between human personality and health. In Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution (eds Carere, C. & Maestripieri, D.) 441–498 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Gharnit, E., Bergeron, P., Garant, D. & Réale, D. Exploration profiles drive activity patterns and temporal niche specialization in a wild rodent. Behav. Ecol. 31, 772–783 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Weiss, A. & Adams, M. J. Differential behavioral ecology. In Animal personalities: behavior, physiology and evolution (eds Carere, C. & Maestripieri, D.) 96–123 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Russell, P. A. Fear-evoking stimuli. In Fear in Animals and Man (ed. Sluckin, W.) 86–124 (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Grossen, N. E. & Kelley, M. J. Species-specific behavior and acquisition of avoidance behavior in rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 81, 307–310 (1972).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Mazza, V., Eccard, J. A., Zaccaroni, M., Jacob, J. & Dammhahn, M. The fast and the flexible: cognitive style drives individual variation in cognition in a small mammal. Anim. Behav. 137, 119–132 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Geng, R. et al. Diet and prey consumption of breeding common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) in Northeast China. Prog. Nat. Sci. 19, 1501–1507 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Jedrzejewska, B. & Jedrzejewski, W. Predation in Vertebrate Communities: The Bialowieza Primeval Forest as a Case Study, vol. 135 (Springer, Berlin, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Sándor, A. D. & Ionescu, D. T. Diet of the eagle owl (Bubo bubo) in Braşov Romania. N.-West. J. Zool. 5, 170–178 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    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. 29, 1123–1144 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Adibi, M. Whisker-mediated touch system in rodents: from neuron to behavior. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 13, 40 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Lavenex, P. & Schenk, F. Olfactory cues potentiate learning of distant visuospatial information. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 68, 140–153 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Tomlinson, W. T. & Johnston, T. D. Hamsters remember spatial information derived from olfactory cues. Anim. Learn. Behav. 19, 185–190 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Casarrubea, M. et al. Temporal structure of the rat’s behavior in elevated plus maze test. Behav. Brain Res. 237, 290–299 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Takahashi, A., Kato, K., Makino, J., Shiroishi, T. & Koide, T. Multivariate analysis of temporal descriptions of open-field behavior in wild-derived mouse strains. Behav. Genet. 36, 763–774 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Krupa, D. J., Matell, M. S., Brisben, A. J., Oliveira, L. M. & Nicolelis, M. A. L. Behavioral properties of the trigeminal somatosensory system in rats performing whisker-dependent tactile discriminations. J. Neurosci. 21, 5752–5763 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    von Heimendahl, M., Itskov, P. M., Arabzadeh, E. & Diamond, M. E. Neuronal activity in rat barrel cortex underlying texture discrimination. PLoS Biol. 5, e305 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Morita, T., Kang, H., Wolfe, J., Jadhav, S. P. & Feldman, D. E. Psychometric curve and behavioral strategies for whisker-based texture discrimination in rats. PLoS ONE 6, e20437 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Lavenex, P. & Schenk, F. Integration of olfactory information in a spatial representation enabling accurate arm choice in the radial arm maze. Learn. Mem. 2, 299–319 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Rangassamy, M., Dalmas, M., Féron, C., Gouat, P. & Rödel, H. G. Similarity of personalities speeds up reproduction in pairs of a monogamous rodent. Anim. Behav. 103, 7–15 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 85, 935–956 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1639–1644 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Faraway, J. J. Extending the Linear Model with R (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2006).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Zuur, A. F. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, Berlin, 2009).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Bates, D. et al. Package ‘lme4’. Convergence 12, 2 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package Vers. 3, 111 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. Principal components and factor analysis. Using Multivar. Stat. 4, 582–633 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Kaiser, H. F. Unity as the universal upper bound for reliability. Percept. Mot. Skills 72, 218–218 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Hadfield, J. D., Wilson, A. J., Garant, D., Sheldon, B. C. & Kruuk, L. E. B. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. Am. Nat. 175, 116–125 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Angelika Beck for preparation of the city project, Antje Herde, Julia Hoffmann, Lisa Teckentrup, Lina Mey, Maureen Schuster and Jonathan Kunkel for their help on the field during trapping and data collection and Mia-Lana Lührs for calculating the sealing indices for the rural sites. The work was partly funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Collaborative Project “Bridging in Biodiversity Science (BIBS)” (Funding Number 01LC1501A) and the German Science Foundation (DFG) within the BioMove research training group (DFG-GRK 2118/1). During manuscript preparation MD was funded by the German Science Foundation (DA 1377/4-1).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.D. and J.A.E. conceived and designed the study; A.S., C.G., M.D. and V.M. performed the data collection; V.M. and M.D. analysed the data; V.M. wrote the paper. All authors contributed to the final draft and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria Mazza.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dammhahn, M., Mazza, V., Schirmer, A. et al. Of city and village mice: behavioural adjustments of striped field mice to urban environments. Sci Rep 10, 13056 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69998-6

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing