Ecological Research

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 153–158 | Cite as

Relatedness among females in a peak phase population of Japanese field voles

  • Hiroshi Mashima
  • Toshiyuki Satoh
  • Yoshiaki Obara
Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Spatial and genetic relationships among females in a peak population ofMicrotus montebelli were studied by live-trapping and DNA fingerprinting. In the early period of the spring breeding season, a close genetic relationship was not observed between neighboring overwintered females, while in the late period, a proximity among highly related females and a dispersed distribution among intermediately related females was observed. These associations among relatives did not last very long, however, as female pairs who remained in the neighborhood for more than 150 days, covering two breeding seasons were not relatives. The possibility of cooperation among relatives in this species may thus be low, except among philopatric females in the late period of a single breeding season.

Key words

cooperative behavior DNA fingerprinting genetic relatedness Microtus montebelli space use 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bondrup-Nielsen S. (1985) An evaluation of the effects of space use and habitat patterns on dispersal in small mammals.Annales Zoologici Fennici 22: 373–383.Google Scholar
  2. Bondrup-Nielsen S. &Karlsson F. (1985) Movements and spatial patterns in populations of Clethrionomys species: A review.Annales Zoologici Fennic 22: 385–392.Google Scholar
  3. Boonstra R. &Hogg I. (1988) Friends and strangers: a test of the Charnov-Finerty hypothesis.Oecologia 77: 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bujalsk G. (1973) The role of spacing behavior among females in the regulation of reproduction in the bank vole.Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 19: 465–474.Google Scholar
  5. Charnov E. L. &Finerty J. P. (1980) Vole population cycles: case for kin-selection?Oecologia 45: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummings S. A. &Hallett J. G. (1991) Assessment of DNA fingerprinting for studies of small-mammal populations.Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 2819–2825.Google Scholar
  7. Hoagland D. B., Tilakaratne N., Weaver R. F. &Gaines M. S. (1991) ‘DNA fingerprinting’ of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster).Journal of Mammalogy 72: 422–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ishibashi Y., Abe S. &Yoshida M. C. (1992) DNA fingerprinting of gray red-backed volesCleturionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Journal of the Mammalogical Society of Japan 17: 19–26.Google Scholar
  9. Kawata M. (1985) Sex differences in the spatial distribution of genotypes in the red-backed vole,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Journal of Mammalogy 66: 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kawata M. (1987) The effect of kinship on spacing among female red-backed voles,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Oecologia 72: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawata M. (1985) Sex differences in the spatial distribution of genotypes in the red-backed vole,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Journal of Mammalogy 66: 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawata M. (1987) The effect of kinship on spacing among female red-backed voles,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Oecologia 72: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kawata M. (1990) Fluctuating populations and kin interaction in mammals.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. König B. (1994) Components of lifetime reproductive success in communally and solitarily nursing house mice—a laboratory study.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambin X. &Krebs C. J. (1991a) Can changes in female relatedness influence microtine population dynamics?Oikos 61: 126–132.Google Scholar
  16. Lambin X. &Krebs C. J. (1991b) Spatial organization and mating system ofMicrotus townsendii.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lambin X. &Krebs C. J. (1993) Influence of female relatedness on the demography of Townsend's vole populations in spring.Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 536–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch M. (1990) The similarity index and DNA fingerprinting.Molecular Biology and Evolution 7: 478–484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Madison D. M. &McShea W. J. (1987) Seasonal changes in reproductive tolerance, spacing, and social organization in meadow voles: a microtine model.American Zoology 27: 899–908.Google Scholar
  20. Mitani K., Takahashi Y. &Kominami R. (1990) A GGCAGG motif in minisatellites affecting their germline instability.Journal of Biological Chemistry 265: 15203–15210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ostfeld R. S. (1990) The ecology of territoriality in small mammals.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostfeld R. S. (1992) Do changes in female relatedness determine demographic patterns in microtine rodents?Oikos 65: 531–534.Google Scholar
  23. Ostfeld R. S., Lidicker Jr W. Z. &Heske E. J. (1985) The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use, and demography in a population of California voles.Oikos 45: 433–442.Google Scholar
  24. Packer C., Gilbert D. A., Pusey A. E. &O'Brien S. J. (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions.Nature 351: 562–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pugh S. R. &Tamarin R. H. (1990) A test of the Charnov and Finerty hypothesis of population regulation in meadow voles. In:Social Systems andPopulation Cycles in Voles (eds R. H. Tamarin, R. S. Ostfeld, S. R. Pugh & G. Bujalska) pp. 111–120. Birkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
  26. Ribble D. O. (1991) The monogamous mating system ofPeromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 161–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saitoh T. (1981) Control of female maturation in high density populations of the red-backed vole,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae.Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Satoh T. &Obara Y. (1995) DNA fingerprints in the honey bee,Apis mellifera, using ant-derived DNA probe.Applied Entomology and Zoology 31: 148–151.Google Scholar
  29. Stickle N. C. (1954) A comparison of certain methods of measuring ranges of small mammals.Journal of Mammalogy 35: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suzuki S., Mitani K., Kuwabara K., Takahashi Y., Niwa O. & Kominami R. (1993) Two mouse hypervariable minisatellites: chromosomal location andGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecological Society of Japan 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Mashima
    • 1
  • Toshiyuki Satoh
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Obara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of AgricultureTokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyFuchu, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations