Advertisement

Social flexibility and environmental unpredictability in African striped mice

  • Carsten SchradinEmail author
  • Neville Pillay
  • Cleo Bertelsmeier
Original Article

Abstract

The resilience of an individual to environmental change depends on its ability to respond adaptively. Phenotypic flexibility, i.e., reversible phenotypic plasticity, is such an adaptive response, which has been predicted to evolve in unpredictable environments. We present data on the environmental predictability for 17 generations of socially flexible African striped mice Rhabdomys pumilio, which can switch from group living to solitary living and back to group living. Population density during the breeding season is the main predictor of social organization in striped mice, which become solitary breeding when population density is low and plural breeding when population density is high. Using time series analysis, we could not reject randomness for the variation in population density and found a 6-year cycle for food availability. However, food availability when individual females grew up did not predict the environmental conditions during which they bred in the next year, their only breeding season. Group size was predictable and most females bred plurally in communal groups. However, single breeding is the preferred tactic to avoid infanticide but for single breeding females, it was not predictable from the environment in which they grew up whether they would become single breeders in the next breeding season. Our study indicates unpredictability in the factors most important for determining the optimal breeding tactics for 322 female striped mice. In sum, striped mice exhibit social flexibility in an unpredictable environment, making it an adaptive trait.

Significance statement

It has long been assumed that the evolution of different forms of sociality depends on the environment. Social flexibility, i.e., the ability of individuals to switch from group living to solitary living and back to group living, has been predicted to be an adaptation to unpredictable environments. However, the extent to which unpredictability influences sociality has never been studied previously. For female African striped mice, population density is the main factor determining whether they live alone or in groups. Here, we show that females cannot predict from the population density under which they grew up the population density under which they will reproduce, making social flexibility adaptive.

Keywords

Phenotypic flexibility Phenotypic plasticity Intra-specific variation in social organization Alternative reproductive tactic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Ivana Schoepf, Ed Yuen, Jörg Jäger, Milena Zduniak, Jessica Mulvey, Davina Hill, Audrey Maille, Rebecca Rimbach, several master students, and more than 80 field assistants for the help in collecting the data. We are grateful for the very helpful comments from two referees. We are grateful to Goegap Nature Reserve. This study was made possible by the administrative and technical support of the Succulent Karoo Research Station (registered South African NPO 122-134). Comments by L. Hayes significantly improved the manuscript.

Author contributions

CS and NP designeded the study. CS collected the data. CS and CB analysed the data. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Claude-Leon Foundation, the German Science Foundation, the National Research Foundation, the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Zurich, the CNRS, the University of Lausanne, the University of Strasbourg Institute of Advanced Study, the Vontobel Stiftung, the Holcim Stiftung, the Promotor Stiftung, and the Helene Biber Fonds.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Animal ethics clearance was provided by the University of the Witwatersrand (AESC 2007/40/01), following the guidelines for the use and care of animals in teaching and research of the University of the Witwatersrand which complies with the University’s ethical and legal practices and with the National Code.

References

  1. Agnani P, Kauffmann C, Hayes LD, Schradin C (2018) Intra-specific variation in social organization of strepsirrhines. Am J Primatol 80:e22758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashander J, Chevin L-M, Baskett ML (2016) Predicting evolutionary rescue via evolving plasticity in stochastic environments. Proc R Soc B 283:20161690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry RJ, Tattersall FH, Hurst J (2008) Genus Mus. In: Harris S, Yalden DW (eds) Mammals of the British Isles handbook, 4th edn. The Mammal Society, Southampton, pp 141–149Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein DT, Ebensperger LA, Hayes LD et al (2010) Toward an integrative understanding of social behavior: new models and new opportunities. Front Behav Neurosci 4:34PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chak STC, Duffy JE, Hultgren KM, Rubenstein DR (2017) Evolutionary transitions towards eusociality in snapping shrimps. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornwallis CK, Botero CA, Rubenstein DR, Downing PA, West SA, Griffin AS (2017) Cooperation facilitates the colonization of harsh environments. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies NB (1992) Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Diggle PJ (1990) Time series, a biostatistical introduction. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Dray S, Dufour A-B (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emlen ST (1982) The evolution of helping. I. An ecological constraints model. Am Nat 119:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guindre-Parker S, Rubenstein DR (2018) Multiple benefits of alloparental care in a fluctuating environment. R Soc Open Sci 5:172406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes LD (2000) To nest communally or not to nest communally: a review of rodent communal nesting and nursing. Anim Behav 59:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill DL, Pillay N, Schradin C (2015a) Alternative reproductive tactics in female striped mice: heavier females are more likely to breed solitarily than communally. J Anim Ecol 84:1497–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill DL, Pillay N, Schradin C (2015b) Alternative reproductive tactics in female striped mice: solitary breeders have lower corticosterone levels than communal breeders. Horm Behav 71:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Jetz W, Rubenstein DR (2011) Environmental uncertainty and the global biogeography of cooperative breeding in birds. Curr Biol 21:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller C, Schradin C (2008) Plant and small mammal richness correlate positively in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodivers Conserv 17:911–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koenig WD, Pitelka FA (1981) Ecological factors and kin selection in the evolution of cooperative breeding in birds. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW (eds) Natural selection and social behavior: recent research and new theory. Chrion Press, New York, pp 261–280Google Scholar
  19. Latham N, Mason G (2004) From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory. Appl Anim Behav Sci 86:261–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lignot JH, Helmstetter C, Secor SM (2005) Postprandial morphological response of the intestinal epithelium of the Burmese python (Python molurus). Comp Biochem Physiol A 141:280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lind MI, Yarlett K, Reger J, Carter MJ, Beckerman AP (2015) The alignment between phenotypic plasticity, the major axis of genetic variation and the response to selection. Proc R Soc B 282:20151651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucia KE, Keane B, Hayes LD, Lin YK, Schaefer RL, Solomon NG (2008) Philopatry in prairie voles: an evaluation of the habitat saturation hypothesis. Behav Ecol 19:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lukas D, Clutton-Brock TH (2013) The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science 341:526–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lukas D, Clutton-Brock T (2017) Climate and the distribution of cooperative breeding in mammals. R Soc Open Sci 4:160897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maille A, Schradin C (2016) Ecophysiology of cognition: how do environmentally induced changes in physiology affect cognitive performance? Biol Rev 20160346Google Scholar
  26. Mateus A, Caeiro F (2013) Comparing several tests of randomness based on the difference of observations. AIP Conf Proc 1558:809–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller JF, Braunisch V, Hwang W, Eggert A-K (2006) Alternative tactics and individual reproductive success in natural associations of the burying beetle, Nicrophorus vespilloides. Behav Ecol 18:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nater CR, Benthem KJ, Canale CI, Schradin C, Ozgul A (2018) Density feedbacks mediate effects of environmental change on population dynamics of a semidesert rodent. J Anim Ecol 87:1534–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phoenix CH, Goy RW, Gerall AA, Young WC (1959) Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissue mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology 65:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piersma T, Drent J (2003) Phenotypic flexibility and the evolution of organismal design. Trends Ecol Evol 18:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piersma T, van Gils JA (2011) The flexible phenotype. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Randall JA, Rogovin K, Parker PG, Eimes JA (2005) Flexible social structure of a desert rodent, Rhombomys opimus: philopatry, kinship, and ecological constraints. Behav Ecol 16:961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reyer H-U (1980) Flexible helper structure as an ecological adaptation in the pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis rudis L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reyer H-U (1984) Investment and relatedness: a cost/benefit analysis of breeding and helping in the pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis). Anim Behav 32:1163–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rymer T, Pillay N, Schradin C (2013) Extinction or survival? Behavioral flexibility in response to environmental change in the African striped mouse Rhabdomys. Sustainability 5:163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rymer TL, Pillay N, Schradin C (2016) Resilience to droughts in mammals: a conceptual framework for estimating vulnerability of a single species. Q Rev Biol 91:133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schoepf I, Schradin C (2012) Better off alone! Reproductive competition and ecological constraints determine sociality in the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). J Anim Ecol 81:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schradin C (2006) Whole day follows of the striped mouse. J Ethol 24:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schradin C (2013) Intraspecific variation in social organization by genetic variation, developmental plasticity, social flexibility or entirely extrinsic factors. Philos Trans R Soc B 368:20120346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schradin C, Pillay N (2004) The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) from the succulent karoo of South Africa: a territorial group living solitary forager with communal breeding and helpers at the nest. J Comp Psychol 118:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schradin C, Pillay N (2005) Intraspecific variation in the spatial and social organization of the African striped mouse. J Mammal 86:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schradin C, Pillay N (2006) Female striped mice (Rhabdomys pumilio) change their home ranges in response to seasonal variation in food availability. Behav Ecol 17:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schradin C, Yuen C-H (2011) Hormone levels of male African striped mice change as they switch between alternative reproductive tactics. Horm Behav 60:676–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schradin C, Scantlebury M, Pillay N, König B (2009) Testosterone levels in dominant sociable males are lower than in solitary roamers: physiological differences between three male reproductive tactics in a sociably flexible mammal. Am Nat 173:376–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schradin C, König B, Pillay N (2010) Reproductive competition favours solitary living while ecological constraints impose group-living in African striped mice. J Anim Ecol 79:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schradin C, Lindholm AK, Johannesen J, Schoepf I, Yuen C-H, König B, Pillay N (2012) Social flexibility and social evolution in mammals: a case study of the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). Mol Ecol 21:541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schradin C, Raynaud J, Arrivé M, Blanc S (2014) Leptin levels in free ranging striped mice (Rhabdomys pumilio) increase when food decreases: the ecological leptin hypothesis. Gen Comp Endocrinol 206:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schradin C, Hayes LD, Pillay N, Bertelsmeier C (2018) The evolution of intraspecific variation in social organization. Ethology 124:527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Solmsen N, Johannesen J, Schradin C (2011) Highly asymmetric fine-scale genetic structure between sexes of African striped mice and indication for condition dependent alternative male dispersal tactics. Mol Ecol 20:1624–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steiner UK, Buskirk JV (2008) Environmental stress and the costs of whole-organism phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles. J Evol Biol 21:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thioulouse J, Chessel D, Champely S (1995) Multivariate analysis of spatial patterns: a unified approach to local and global structures. Environ Ecol Stat 2:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valomy M, Hayes LD, Schradin C (2015) Social organization in Eulipotyphla: evidence for a social shrew. Biol Lett 11:20150825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vuarin P, Pillay N, Schradin C (2019) Elevated basal corticosterone levels increase disappearance risk of light but not heavy individuals in a long-term monitored rodent population. Horm Behav (published online).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wallen K (2009) Commentary: The organizational hypothesis: reflections on the 50th anniversary of the publications of Phoenix, Goy, Gerall, and Young (1959). Horm Behav 55:561–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Werger MJA (1974) On concept and techniques applied in the Zürich-Montpellier method of vegetation survey. Bothalia 11:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford Uiversity Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178Université de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.School of Animal, Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations