Alternative male reproductive tactics in a natural population of prairie voles Microtus ochrogaster

• Autorzy: McGuire B. , Getz L.L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Alternative reproductive tactics have been described in male mammals, but little information exists regarding fitness benefits and whether males change tactics. Adult male prairie voles Microtus ochrogaster (Wagner, 1842) display alternative tactics described as resident and wanderer. Enclosure studies provide conflicting data concerning the relative success of each tactic and whether males display one tactic throughout adulthood. To characterize further residents and wanderers in this species, we examined data collected during 5 years of monitoring a natural population in Illinois, USA. We found that during the breeding period, wandering males survived longer, moved longer distances, and were more likely than residents to have scrotal testes. During the nonbreeding period, wandering and resident males differed only in whether or not they established residency. Data on sources and fates of resident and wandering males revealed that a substantial proportion of males switched tactics. Our estimate of the reproductive contribution of wandering males to the population, which is based on the premise that wandering males typically mate with single females, suggests that wanderers contribute 34–38% of young recruited during March through October and 4–12% in November, when single females are less common. Parentage studies in natural populations are necessary to test our estimates.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

alternative tactics; male; reproductive tactics; natural population; animal population; prairie vole; Microtus ochrogaster; wanderer

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 55
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.261-270,ref.

Twórcy

autor

McGuire B.

• Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

autor

Getz L.L.

Bibliografia

• Batzli G. O., Getz L. L. and Hurley S. 1977. Suppression of growth and reproduction of microtine rodents by social factors. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 583–591.
• Brockmann H. J. 2001. The evolution of alternative strategies and tactics. Advances in the Study of Behavior 30: 1–51.
• Burt W. H. 1940. Territorial behavior and populations of some small mammals in southern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 45: 1–58.
• Ganev I. V., Solomon N. G., Lucia K. E. and Keane B. 2009. Multiple captures of adult prairie voles are correlated with residency status and genetic parentage. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 696–703. doi: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-198R1.1
• Gannon W. L., Sikes R. S. and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists 2007. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild animals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 809–823. doi: 10.1644/06-MAMMF-185R1.1
• Getz L. L., Hofmann J. E., Klatt B. J., Verner L., Cole F. R. and Lindroth R. L. 1987. Fourteen years of population fluctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in east central Illinois. Canadian Journal of Zoology 6: 1317–1325. doi: 1987: 10.1139/z87-208
• Getz L. L., Hofmann J. E., McGuire B. and Dolan T. W. III. 2001. Twenty-five years of population fluctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in three habitats in east-central Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 22–34. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082〈0022:TFYOPF〉 2.0.CO;2
• Getz L. L. and McGuire B. 1993. A comparison of living singly and in male-female pairs in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Ethology 94: 256–278.
• Getz L. L. and McGuire B. 1997. Communal nesting in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): Formation, composition and persistence of communal groups. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75: 525–537.
• Getz L. L., McGuire B. and Carter C. S. 2003. Social behavior, reproduction and demography of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 15: 105–118.
• Getz L. L., McGuire B., Hofmann J. E., Pizzuto T. and Frase B. 1994. Natal dispersal and philopatry in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): settlement, survival, and potential reproductive success. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 6: 267–284.
• Getz L. L., McGuire B., Pizzuto T., Hofmann J. E. and Frase B. 1993. Social organization of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Journal of Mammalogy 74: 44–58.
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E. and McGuire B. 2005a. The influence of immigration on demography of sympatric voles. Acta Theriologica 50: 323–342.
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E., McGuire B. and Ozgul A. 2005b. Factors influencing movement distances of two species of sympatric voles. Journal of Mammalogy 86: 647–654. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)086[0647: FIMDOT]2.0.CO;2
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E. and McGuire B. 2005c. Habitat-specific demography of sympatric vole populations over 25 years. Journal of Mammalogy 86: 561–568. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[561:HDOSVP]2.0.CO;2
• Getz L. L., Oli M. K., Hofmann J. E. and McGuire B. 2006. Vole population dynamics: factors affecting peak densities and amplitudes of annual Microtus ochrogaster population fluctuations. Basic and Applied Ecology 7: 97–107. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2005.05.005
• Gross M. R. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 92–98. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0
• Heckel G. and von Helversen O. 2002. Male tactics and reproductive success in the harem polygynous bat Saccopteryx bilineata. Behavioral Ecology 13: 750–756. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.6.750
• Hofmann J. E., Getz L. L. and Gavish L. 1984. Home range overlap and nest cohabitation of male and female prairie voles. American Midland Naturalist 112: 314–319.
• Kleiman D. G. 1977. Monogamy in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 52: 39–69.
• Kozakiewicz M., Chołuj A. and Kozakiewicz A. 2007. Long-distance movements of individuals in a free-living bank vole population: an important element of male breeding strategy. Acta Theriologica 52: 339–348.
• Kozakiewicz M., Chołuj A., Kozakiewicz A. and Sokół M. 2009. Familiarity and female choice in the bank vole — do females prefer strangers? Acta Theriologica 54: 157–164.
• Lemen C. A. and Freeman P. W. 1985. Tracking mammals with fluorescent pigments: a new technique. Journal of Mammalogy 66: 134–136.
• Mateo J. M., Holmes W. G., Bell A. M. and Turner M. 1994. Sexual maturation in male prairie voles: effects of the social environment. Physiology and Behavior 56: 299–304.
• McGuire B. and Getz L. L. 1998. The nature and frequency of social interactions among free-living prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43: 271–279. doi: 10.1007/s002650050491
• McGuire B., Getz L. L. and Oli M. K. 2002. Fitness consequences of sociality in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster: Influence of group size and composition. Animal Behaviour 64: 645–654. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002. 3094
• McGuire B., Oli M. K. and Getz L. L. 2009. Effects of conspecifics and heterospecifics on immigration in two species of voles. Acta Theriologica 54: 321–332. doi: 4098/j.at.0001-7051.107.2008
• Ophir A. G., Phelps S. M., Sorin A. B. and Wolff J. O. 2008a. Social but not genetic monogamy is associated with greater breeding success in prairie voles. Animal Behaviour 75: 1143–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.022
• Ophir A. G., Wolff J. O. and Phelps S. M. 2008b. Variation in neural V1aR predicts sexual fidelity and space use among male prairie voles in semi-natural settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 105: 1249–1254. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709116105
• Rissman E. F. and Johnston R. E. 1985. Female reproductive development is not activated by male California voles exposed to family cues. Biology of Reproduction 32: 352–360.
• Rissman E. F., Sheffield S. D., Kretzmann M. B., Fortune J. E. and Johnston R. E. 1984. Chemical cues from families delay puberty in male California voles. Biology of Reproduction 31: 324–331.
• Slade N. A. and Swihart R. K. 1983. Home range indices for the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in northeastern Kansas. Journal of Mammalogy 64: 580–590.
• Solomon N. G. and Crist T. O. 2008. Estimates of reproductive success for group-living prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, in high density populations. Animal Behaviour 76: 881–892. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.01.028
• Solomon N. G. and Jacquot J. J. 2002. Characteristics of resident and wandering prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 951–955. doi: 10.1139/Z02-053
• Solomon N. G., Richmond A. R., Harding P. A., Fries A., Jacquemin S., Schaefer R. L., Lucia K. E. and Keane B. 2009. Polymorphism at the avpr1a locus in male prairie voles correlated with genetic but not social monogamy in field populations. Molecular Ecology 18: 4680–4695. doi: 10.1111/j1365-294X.2009.04361.x
• Stockley P., Searle J. B., Macdonald D. W. and Jones C. S. 1994. Alternative reproductive tactics in male common shrews: relationships between mate-searching behaviour, sperm production, and reproductive success as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34: 71–78. doi: 10.1007/BF00175460
• Van Parijs S. M., Lydersen C. and Kovacs K. M. 2003. Vocalizations and movements suggest alternative mating tactics in male bearded seals. Animal Behaviour 65: 273–283. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2048
• Winslow J. T., Hastings N., Carter C. S., Harbaugh C. R. and Insel T. R. 1993. A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. Nature 365: 545–548. doi: 10.1038/365545a0
• Wolff J. O. 2008. Alternative reproductive tactics in non-p rimate male mammals. [In: Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. R. Oliveira, M. Taborsky and J. Brockmann, eds]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 356–372.
• Young L. J. 1999. Oxytocin and vasopressin receptors and species typical-social behaviors. Hormones and Behavior 36: 212–221. doi: 10.1006/hbeh.1999.1548