The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting

Summary

I used DNA fingerprinting to assess mating exclusivity in Peromyscus californicus, a species presumed to be monogamous. Putative genealogical relationships were determined in the field from transfer of fluorescent pigments. The putative father was confirmed to be the genetic father for 82 offspring from 22 complete families. An additional 17 offspring from 5 families were tested in which samples from either the mother or father were not available. The offspring within each family were most likely full siblings and hence sired by only one father. An incestuous mating between brother and sister was also confirmed with DNA fingerprinting. Thus, all offspring from 28 families resulted from exclusive matings between single male and female pairs over a 2-year period. There were no instances of multiple paternity detected, and mate switches occurred only after one member of a pair disappeared. This is the first convincing demonstration of exclusive monogamy in a mammal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Agren G, Zhou Q, Zhong W (1989) Ecology and social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils, Meriones unguiculatus, at Xilinhot, Inner Mongolia, China. Anim Behav 37:11–27

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barlow GW (1988) Monogamy in relation to resources. In: Slobodchikoff CN (ed) The ecology of social behavior. Academic, San Diego, pp 55–79

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bowen BS (1982) Temporal dynamics of microgeographic structure of genetic variation in Microtus californicus. J Mammal 63:625–638

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burke T (1989) DNA fingerprinting and other methods for the study of mating success. Trends Ecol Evol 4:139–144

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burke T, Bruford MW (1987) DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature 327:149–152

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burke T, Davies NB, Bruford MW, Hatchwell BJ (1989) Parental care and mating behaviour of polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis related to paternity by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 338:249–251

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chakraborty R, Meagher TR, Smouse PE (1988) Parentage analysis with genetic markers in natural populations. I. The expected proportion of offspring with unambiguous paternity. Genetics 118:527–536

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chandler T (1979) Population biology of coastal chaparral rodents. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen JE (1990) DNA fingerprinting for forensic identification: potential effects on data interpretation of subpopulation heterogeneity and band number variability. Am J Hum Genet 46:358–368

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dewsbury DA (1981) An exercise in the prediction of monogamy in the field from laboratory data on 42 species of muroid rodents. Biologist 63:138–162

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dewsbury DA (1988) The comparative psychology of monogamy. In: Leger D (ed) Nebraska symposium on motivation. Univ Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 1–50

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dubach D (1986) Pinna tissue, a source of allozymic information. Southwest Nat 31:419–420

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dudley D (1974a) Contributions of paternal care to the growth and development of the young in Peromyscus californicus. Behav Biol 11:155–166

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dudley D (1974b) Paternal behavior in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Behav Biol 11:247–252

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dueser RD, Rose RK, Porter JH (1984) A body-weight criterion to identify dispersing small mammals. J Mammal 65:727–729

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dunbar R (1984) The ecology of monogamy. New Scientist 103:12–15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eisenberg JF (1962) Studies on the behavior of Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii and Peromyscus californicus. Behavior 19:177–207

    Google Scholar 

  18. Elwood RW (1983) Paternal care in rodents. In: Elwood RW (ed) Paternal behavior of rodents. Wiley, New York, pp 235–257

    Google Scholar 

  19. Foltz DW (1981) Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. Am Nat 117:665–675

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gilbert DA, Lehman N, O'Brien SJ, Wayne RK (1990) Genetic fingerprinting reflects population differentiation in the California Channel Island fox. Nature 344:764–766

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gowaty PA, Karlin AA (1984) Multiple paternity and maternity in single broods of apparently monogamous eastern bluebirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:91–95

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gubernick DJ, Alberts JR (1987) The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. J Comp Psych 101:169–177

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gubernick DJ, Alberts JR (1989) Postpartum maintenance of paternal behaviour in the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Anim Behav 37:656–664

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gubernick DJ, Nelson RJ (1989) Prolactin and paternal behavior in the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Hermon Behav 23:203–210

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gyllensten UB, Jakobsson S, Temrin H (1990) No evidence for illegitimate young in monogamous and polygynous warblers. Nature 343:168–170

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hill WG (1986) DNA fingerprint analysis in immigration testcases. Nature 322:290–291

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jeffreys AJ, Morton DB (1987) DNA fingerprints of dogs and cats. Anim Genet 18:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson T, Them SL (1985a) Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA. Nature 314:67–73

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985b) Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA. Nature 316:76–79

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL, Weatherall DJ, Ponder BAJ (1986) DNA “fingerprints” and segregation analysis of multiple markers in human pedigrees. Ann J Hum Genet 39:11–24

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson T, Kelly R, Taylor BA, Bulfield G (1987) Mouse DNA “fingerprints”: analysis of chromosome localization and germ-line stability of hypervariable loci in recombinant inbred strains. Nucleic Acids Res 15:2823–2836

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kafatos FC, Jones CW, Efstratiadis A (1979) Determination of nucleic acid sequence homologies and relative concentrations by dot hybridization procedure. Nucleic Acids Res 7:1541–1552

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kaufman GA (1989) Use of fluorescent pigments to study social interactions in a small nocturnal rodent, Peromyscus maniculatus. J Mammal 70:171–174

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kleiman DG (1977) Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 52:39–69

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kleiman DG, Malcolm JR (1981) The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In: Gubernick DJ, Klopfer PH (eds) Parental care in mammals. Plenum Press, New York, pp 347–387

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kurland JA, Gaulin SJC (1984) The evolution of male paternal investment: effects of genetic relatedness and feeding ecology and the allocation of reproductive effort. In: Taub DW (ed) Primate paternalism. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 259–308

    Google Scholar 

  38. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning: a laboratory approach. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maynard Smith J (1977) Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Anim Behav 25:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  40. McCabe TT, Blanchard BD (1950) Three species of Peromyscus. Rood, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  41. McKinney F, Cheng KM, Bruggers DJ (1984) Sperm competition in apparently monogamous birds. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 523–545

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ralls K, Harvey PH, Lyles AM (1986) Inbreeding in natural populations of birds and mammals. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 35–56

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reeve HK, Westneat DF, Noon WA, Sherman PW, Aquadro CF (1990) DNA “fingerprinting” reveals high levels of inbreeding in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:2496–2500

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ribble DO (1990) Population and social dynamics of the California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ribble DO, Salvioni M (1990) Social organization and nest cooccupancy in Peromyscus californicus, a monogamous rodent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  46. Richardson PRK (1987) Aardwolf mating system: overt cuckoldry in an apparently monogamous mammal. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wetenskap 83:405–410

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sherman PL, Morton ML (1988) Extra-pair fertilizations in mountain white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:413–419

    Google Scholar 

  48. Slobodchikoff CN (1984) Resources and the evolution of social behavior. In: Price PW, Slobodchikoff CN, Gaud WS (eds) A new ecology. Novel approaches to interactive systems. Wiley, New York, pp 227–251

    Google Scholar 

  49. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

    Google Scholar 

  50. Westneat DF (1987) Extra-pair fertilizations in a predominantly monogamous bird — genetic evidence. Anim Behav 35:877–886

    Google Scholar 

  51. Westneat DF (1990) Genetic parentage in the indigo bunting: a study using DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:67–76

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wetton JH, Carter RE, Parkin DT, Walters D (1987) Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327:147–149

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wittenberger JF, Tilson RL (1980) The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:197–232

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wolff JO, Cicirello DM (1989) Field evidence for sexual selection and resource competition infanticide in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 38:637–642

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Offprint requests to: D.O. Ribble at his California address

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ribble, D.O. The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29, 161–166 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166397

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mating System
  • Full Sibling
  • Single Male
  • Multiple Paternity
  • Female Pair