Territory scent mark signals

Economic consequences of scent marking in mammalian territoriality. In Chemical Signals in Verteirates, vol. 4, ed. D. Duvall, D. Miiller-Schwarze, and R. M. Silver-stein, pp. 385-395. New York Plenum. 

Paquet, P. C. and Fuller, W. A. (1990). Scent marking and territoriality in wolves of Riding Mountain National Park. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, vol. 5, ed. D. W. Macdonald, D. Miiller-Schwarze, and S. E. Natynczuk, pp. 394-400. Oxford Oxford University Press. 

Roberts, S. C. and Gosling, L. M. (2001). The economic consequences of advertising scent mark location on territories. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, vol. 9, ed. A. Marchlewska-Koi, J. J. Lepri, and D. Miiller-Schwarze, pp. 11-17. New York Plenum. 

If rivals are successfully chased from a territory the resident reduces the attraction of any scent marks deposited by those rivals with the addition of his own scent close to ( countermarking , e.g. house mice) or across ( overmarking , e.g. golden hamsters and meadow voles) those of the intruder (Johnston et al., 1994, 1997 Hurst and Rich, 1999 Hurst et al., 2001). The ability to ensure one s own scent marks are the most recent in the territory, by rapidly countermarking or overmarking all non-self marks, will signal competitive success as only males able to evict rivals could maintain such territorial signals. 

Selection for effective signal-sending behavior harnesses odors that often are already available at no extra cost. Chemical signals are behavioral amplifiers via the behaviors they modulate in receivers. The benefits can be enormous. For example, scent marking permits defending a large territory (Gosling 1990) which contains superior resources, with all its consequences for fitness. 

---