Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 275–283 | Cite as

Components of lifetime reproductive success in communally and solitarily nursing house mice — a laboratory study

  • Barbara König 


Under laboratory conditions, communal nursing among familiar and closely related female house mice (Mus domesticus) improved lifetime reproductive success compared to females rearing litters alone or females living with a previously unfamiliar, unrelated partner (reproductive success was measured within an experimental “lifespan” of 6 months, standardized as 120 days after mating at the age of about 2 months). An analysis of the contribution of three multiplicatively combined components to variation in reproductive success among breeding females revealed that, in all three social groups, survival of young until weaning contributed most to differences in lifetime reproduction (46–64% of the total variance). Females living with a sister had a significantly higher probability of reproducing successfully than females in the other groups, and also reared significantly more litters communally than females sharing nests with an unrelated partner. Weaning probabilities of young were highest in litters cared for by sisters and lowest in nests of unrelated females. Young were found dead either directly after birth (within the first 2 days of lactation) or after they had been cared for and nursed for at least 1 day. The loss of an entire litter typically occurred directly after birth. In monogamous females rearing litters alone the death of almost all young coincided with such early entire-litter mortality. In polygynous groups, however, offspring died at an older age and more litters suffered the loss of some young. Still, rearing young with a sister improved survival directly after birth and fewer litters were lost entirely in comparison with females in the other groups. In polygynous groups, pregnant females were observed to kill some of their partner's dependent young shortly before they gave birth themselves. As a consequence, individual young had reduced survival when they were firstborn in a communal nest (another litter was born within 16 days). Analyzed over a lifetime, communal care among familiar and closely related female house mice seems to be an adaptation to maximize the survival of offspring until weaning.

Key words

Communal nursing Cooperation Fitness components House mouse Reproductive success 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson PK (1965) The role of breeding structure in evolutionary processes of Mus musculus populations. Proc Symp Mutation Proc, Prague, pp 17–21Google Scholar
  2. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Theory. Evolution 38:709–719Google Scholar
  3. Baker AEM (1981) Gene flow in house mice: behavior in a population cage. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:83–90Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp GK, Gilbert AN, Yamazaki K, Boyse EA (1986) Genetic basis for individual discriminations: the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. In: Duvall D, Miiller-Schwarze D, Silverstein RM (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates, 4 Ecology, evolution, and comparative Biology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 413–422Google Scholar
  5. Berry RJ (1971) Life and death in an island population of the house mouse. Exp Gerontol 6:187–197Google Scholar
  6. Berry RJ (1981a) Population dynamics of the house mouse. Symp Zool Soc London 47:395–425Google Scholar
  7. Berry RJ (1981b) Town mouse, country mouse: adaptation and adaptability in Mus domesticus (M. musculus domesticus). Mammal Rev 11:91–136Google Scholar
  8. Bronson FH (1983) Chemical communication in house mice and deer mice: Functional roles in reproduction of wild populations. Spec Publ Am Soc Mamm 7:198–238Google Scholar
  9. Bronson FH (1984) The adaptability of the house mouse. Sci Am 250:90–97Google Scholar
  10. Brown D (1988) Components of lifetime reproductive success. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 439–453Google Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH (1988a) Reproductive success. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 472–485Google Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH (1988b) Reproductive success. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Creel SR, Creel NM (1991) Energetics, reproductive suppression and obligate communal breeding in carnivores. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:263–270Google Scholar
  14. Crow JF (1958) Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum Biol 30:1–13Google Scholar
  15. Crowcroft P, Rowe FP (1963) Social organization and territorial behaviour in the wild house mouse (Mus musculus L.). Proc Zool Soc London 140:517–531Google Scholar
  16. DeFries JC, McClearn GE (1970) Social dominance and Darwinian fitness in the laboratory mouse. Am Nat 104:408–411Google Scholar
  17. Elwood R (1992) Pup-cannibalism in rodents: causes and consequences. In: Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (eds) Cannibalism. Ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 299–322Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs S (1981) Consequences of premature weaning on the reproduction of mothers and offspring in laboratory mice. Z Tierpsychol 55:19–32Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs S (1982) Optimality of parental investment: the influence of nursing on the reproductive success of mother and female young house mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:39–51Google Scholar
  20. Gandelman R, Paschke RE, Zarrow M, Denenberg VH (1970) Care of young under communal conditions in the mouse (Mus musculus). Dev Psychobiol 3:245–250Google Scholar
  21. Gandelman R, Simon NG (1977) Spontaneous pup-killing by mice in response to large litters. Dev Psychobiol 11:235–241Google Scholar
  22. Grafen A (1988) On the uses of data on lifetime reproductive success. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 454–471Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour (I and II). J Theor Biol 7:1–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanwell A, Peaker M (1977) Physiological effects of lactation on the mother. Symp Zool Soc London 41:297–312Google Scholar
  25. Hoogland JL (1985) Infanticide in prairie dogs: lactating females kill offspring of close kin. Science 230:1037–1040Google Scholar
  26. König B (1989) Behavioural ecology of kin recognition in house mice. Ethol Ecol Evol 1:99–110Google Scholar
  27. König B (1993) Maternal investment of communally nursing female house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Behav Proc 30:61–74Google Scholar
  28. König B (in press) Fitness effects of communal rearing in house mice: The role of relatedness versus familiarity. Anim BehavGoogle Scholar
  29. König B, Markl H (1987) Maternal care in house mice. I. The weaning strategy as a means for parental manipulation of off-spring quality. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:1–9Google Scholar
  30. König B, Riester J, Markl H (1988) Maternal care in house mice (Mus musculus): II. The energy cost of lactation as a function of litter size. J Zool London 216:195–210Google Scholar
  31. Lidicker WZJ (1976) Social behaviour and density regulation in house mice living in large enclosures. J Anim Ecol 45:677–697Google Scholar
  32. Mackintosh JH (1981) Behaviour of the house mouse. Symp Zool Soc London 47:337–365Google Scholar
  33. Manning CJ, Wakeland EK, Potts WK (1992) Communal nesting patterns in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature 360:581–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mennella JA, Blumberg MS, McClintock MK, Moltz H (1990) Inter-litter competition and communal nursing among Norway rats: advantages of birth synchrony. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:183–190Google Scholar
  35. Møller AP (1987) Advantages and disadvantages of coloniality in the swallow, Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav 35:819–832Google Scholar
  36. Mumme RL, Koenig WD, Pitelka FA (1983) Reproductive competition in the communal acorn woodpecker: sisters destroy each other's eggs. Nature 306:583–584Google Scholar
  37. Mumme RL, Koenig WD, Pitelka FA (1988) Costs and benefits of joint nesting in the acorn woodpecker. Am Nat 131:654–677Google Scholar
  38. Packer C, Scheel D, Pusey AE (1990) Why lions form groups: food is not enough. Am Nat 136:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pennycuik PR, Johnston P, Westwood N, Reisner A (1986) Variation in numbers in a house mouse population housed in a large outdoor enclosure: seasonal fluctuations. J Anim Ecol 55:371–391Google Scholar
  40. Petras ML (1967) Studies of natural populations of Mus. I. Biochemical polymorphisms and their bearing on breeding structure. Evolution 21:259–274Google Scholar
  41. Reimer J, Petras ML (1967) Breeding structure of the house mouse in a population cage. J Mammal 48:88–99Google Scholar
  42. Sayler A, Salmon M (1969) Communal nursing in mice: influence of multiple mothers on the growth of the young. Science 164:1309–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayler A, Salmon M (1971) An ethological analysis of communal nursing by the house mouse. Behaviour 40:60–85Google Scholar
  44. Selander RK (1970) Behavior and genetic variation in natural populations. Am Zool 10:53–66Google Scholar
  45. Singleton GR, Hay DA (1983) The effect of social organization on reproductive success and gene flow in colonies of wild house mice, Mus musculus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:49–56Google Scholar
  46. Southwick CH (1955) Regulatory mechanisms of house mouse populations: social behavior affecting litter survival. Ecology 36:627–634Google Scholar
  47. Vehrencamp SL (1977) Relative fecundity and parental effort in communally nesting anis, Crotophaga sulcirostris. Science 197:403–405Google Scholar
  48. Werboff J, Steg M, Barnes L (1970) Communal nursing in mice: strain-specific effects of multiple mothers on growth and behavior. Psychonomic Sci 19:269–271Google Scholar
  49. Wilkinson GS (1992) Communal nursing in the evening bat, Nycti-ceius humeralis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:225–235Google Scholar
  50. Wilkinson GS, Baker AEM (1988) Communal nesting among genetically similar house mice. Ethology 77:103–114Google Scholar
  51. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara König 
    • 1
  1. 1.Theodor-Boveri-Institut, Zoologie IIIBiozentrumAm HublandGermany
  2. 2.Zoologie 111BiozentrumAm HublandGermany

Personalised recommendations