Advertisement

Biology Bulletin

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 376–381 | Cite as

The Influence of Sire Presence on Survival and the Growth Rate of Juvenile Common Voles Microtus arvalis

  • V. S. Gromov
Zoology
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Pup survival and growth rates were monitored to determine whether paternal care potentially contributes to reproductive success of male common voles Microtus arvalis Pallas, 1779. The subjects were 258 pups from 47 litters obtained from adult voles trapped in the wild. Reproducing pairs were formed and divided onto two groups in accordance with the age and parental experience of the reproducing individuals: group I included pairs with subadult males and nulliparous females; group II included pairs with adult males and multiparous females. Each of the groups was divided into two subgroups: in subgroups Iа (n = 13) and IIа (n= 11), litters were raised by females without sires; in subgroups Ib (n = 12) and IIb (n = 11), litters were raised by both parents. The litter size was recorded at parturition and again when the young were 12, 21, and 30 days old. Pups in each litter were weighed at parturition and also again when the young were 12, 21, and 30 days old. This study has shown that the presence of the sire may negatively affect both survival and growth rates of the pups, but this effect is dependent on the age of the reproducing individuals.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahroon, J.K. and Fidura, F.G., The influence of the male on maternal behaviour in the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus), Anim. Behav., 1976, vol. 24, pp. 372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, S.A. and Dickson, R.G., A paternal influence on survival of wild mice in the nest, Nature (Lond.), 1985, vol. 317, pp. 617–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashenina, N.V. and Meier, M.N., Postnatal period. Growth, in Obyknovennaya polevka: vidy-dvoiniki (Common Vole: Sibling Species), Moscow: Nauka, 1994, pp. 242–245.Google Scholar
  4. Bashenina, N.V., Meier, M.N., and Zorenko, T.A., Development, in Obyknovennaya polevka: vidy-dvoiniki (Common Vole: Sibling Species), Moscow: Nauka, 1994, pp. 253–266.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, D.T. and Armitage, K.B., Does sociality drive the evolution of communicative complexity? A comparative test with ground-dwelling sciurid alarm calls, Am. Natur., 1997, vol. 150, pp. 179–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein, D.T. and Armitage, K.B., Life history consequences of social complexity: a comparative study of grounddwelling sciurids, Behav. Ecol., 1998, vol. 9, pp. 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calhoun, J.B., The Ecology and Sociology of the Norway Rat, Bethesda, Maryland, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. Crook, J.H., Social organization and the environment: aspects of contemporary social ethology, Anim. Behav., 1970, vol. 18, pp. 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crook, J.H., Ellis, J.E., and Goss-Custard, J.D., Mammalian social systems: structure and function, Anim. Behav., 1976, vol. 24, pp. 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R. and Carlisle, T.R., Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy, Nature (Lond.), 1976, vol. 262, pp. 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewsbury, D.A., Paternal behavior in rodents, Am. Zool., 1985, vol. 25, pp. 841–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudley, D., Contributions of parental care to the growth and development of the young Peromyscus californicus, Behav. Neural Biol., 1974, vol. 11, pp. 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberg, J.F., The social organization of mammals, Handbook Zool., 1965, vol. 8, pp. 1–191.Google Scholar
  14. Elwood, R.W., Paternal and maternal behaviour in the Mongolian gerbil, Anim. Behav., 1975, vol. 23, pp. 766–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elwood, R.W., Paternal care in rodents, in Parental Behaviour of Rodents, Elwood, R.W., Ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983, pp. 441–455.Google Scholar
  16. Elwood, R.W. and Broom, D.M., The influence of litter size and parental behaviour on the development of Mongolian gerbil pups, Anim. Behav., 1978, vol. 26, pp. 438–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emlen, S.T., Evolution of cooperative breeding in birds and mammals, in Behavioral Ecology, Krebs, J.R., Davies, N.B., Eds., London: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 301–337.Google Scholar
  18. Emlen, S.T., Benefits, constraints and the evolution of the family, Tr. Ecol. Evol., 1994, vol. 9, pp. 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerling, S. and Yahr, P., Effect of the male parent on pup survival in Mongolian gerbils, Anim. Behav., 1979, vol. 27, pp. 310–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gromov, V.S., Prostranstvenno-etologicheskaya struktura populyatsii gryzunov (Spatial and Ethological Structure of Rodent Populations), Moscow: KMK, 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Gromov, V.S., Interactions of partners in family pairs, care of the offspring, and the role of tactile stimulation in formation of parental behavior of the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) under laboratory conditions, Biol. Bull. (Moscow), 2009, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gromov, V.S., Pair-bonding and parental care in cricetid rodents: a comparative study, Acta Theriol., 2011a, vol. 56, pp. 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gromov, V.S., Biparental care, tactile stimulation, and evolution of sociality in rodents, J. Evol. Biol. Res., 2011b, vol. 3, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
  24. Gromov, V.S., Zabota o potomstve u gryzunov: etologicheskie, fiziologicheskie i evolyutsionnye aspekty (Parental Care in Rodents: Ethological, Physiological, and Evolutionary Aspects), Moscow: KMK, 2013a.Google Scholar
  25. Gromov, V.S., Parental care and the effect of the presence of male on the formation of parental behavior in common vole (Microtus arvalis) under laboratory conditions, Sib. Ekol. Zh., 2013b, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 431–438.Google Scholar
  26. Gromov, V.S., Complicated social structure and the evolution of sociality in rodents: cooperation as the main promoting factor, in Social Behavior: Evolutionary Pathways, Environmental Influences and Impairments, Watson, P., Ed., New York: Nova Sci. Publ., 2014, pp. 71–119.Google Scholar
  27. Gromov, V.S. and Voznesenskaya, V.V., Care of young, aggressiveness, and secretion of testosterone in male rodents: a correlation analysis, Biol. Bull. (Moscow), 2013, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gubernick, D.J., Wright, S.L., and Brown, R.E., The significance of father’s presence for offspring survival in the monogamous California mouse, Peromyscus californicus, Anim. Behav., 1993, vol. 46, pp. 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartung, T.G. and Dewsbury, D.A., Paternal behavior of six species of muroid rodents, Behav. Neural Biol., 1979, vol. 26, pp. 446–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoogland, J.L., The Black-Tailed Prairie Dog: Social Life of a Burrowing Mammal, Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. Horner, B.E. and Taylor, J.M., Growth and reproductive behavior in the southern grasshopper mouse, J. Mammal., 1968, vol. 49, pp. 644–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Innes, D.G.L., A reexamination of litter size in some North American microtines, Can. J. Zool., 1978, vol. 56, pp. 1488–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kleiman, D.G., Monogamy in mammals, Q. Rev. Biol., 1977, vol. 52, pp. 39–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleiman, D.G. and Malcolm, J.R., The evolution of male parental investment in mammals, in Parental Care in Mammals, Gubernick, D. and Klopfer, P., Eds., New York: Plenum Press, 1981, pp. 347–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klippel, J.A., Does the male gerbil parent (Meriones unguiculatus) contribute to pup mortality: a reply, Anim. Behav., 1979, vol. 27, pp. 311–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lacey, E.A., Sociality reduces individual direct fitness in a communally breeding rodent, the colonial tuco-tuco (Ctenomys sociabilis), Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 2004, vol. 56, pp. 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lacey, E.A. and Sherman, P.W., Cooperative breeding in naked mole rats: Implications for vertebrate and invertebrate sociality, in Cooperative Breeding in Mammals, Solomon, N.G. and French, J.A., Eds., Cambridge: Cambr. Univ. Press, 1997, pp. 267–301.Google Scholar
  38. Lacey, E.A. and Sherman, P.W., The ecology of sociality in rodents, in Rodent Societies: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective, Wolff, J.O. and Sherman, P.W., Eds., Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 2007, pp. 243–254.Google Scholar
  39. Lonstein, J.S. and De Vries, G.J., Comparison of the parental behavior of pair-bonded female and male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster), Physiol. Behav., 1999, vol. 66, pp. 33–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McCarty, R. and Southwick, C.H., Patterns of parental care in two cricetid rodents, Onychomys torridus and Peromyscus leucopus, Anim. Behav., 1977, vol. 25, pp. 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGuire, B. and Novak, M., A comparison of maternal behaviour in the meadow vole (Mictotus pennsylvanicus), prairie vole (M. ochrogaster) and pine vole (M. pinetorum), Anim. Behav., 1984, vol. 32, pp. 1132–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J., Biometry, New York: Plenum Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  43. Trivers, R.L., Parental investment and sexual selection, in Sexual Selection and Descent of Man, Campbell, B., Ed., Chicago: Aldine, 1972, pp. 139–179.Google Scholar
  44. Wang, Z.X. and Novak, M.A., Alloparental care and the influence of father presence on juvenile prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, Anim. Behav., 1994, vol. 47, pp. 282–288.Google Scholar
  45. Werren, J.H., Gross, M.R., and Shine, R., Paternity and the evolution of male parental care, J. Theor. Biol., 1980, vol. 82, pp. 619–631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittenberger, J.F. and Tilson, R.L., The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 1980, vol. 11, pp. 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wynne-Edwards, K.E., Evidence for obligate monogamy in the Djungarian hamster, Phodopus campbelli: pup survival under different parenting conditions, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 1987, vol. 20, pp. 427–437.Google Scholar
  48. Wynne-Edwards, K.E. and Lisk, R.D., Differential effects of paternal presence on pup survival in two species of dwarf hamster (Phodopus sungorus and Phodopus campbelli), Physiol. Behav., 1989, vol. 45, pp. 465–469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Xia, X. and Millar, J.S., Paternal behavior by Peromyscus leucopus in enclosures, Can. J. Zool., 1988, vol. 66, pp. 1184–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zorenko, T.A., Ethology, in Obyknovennaya polevka: vidydvoiniki (Common Vole: Sibling Species), Moscow: Nauka, 1994, pp. 299–320.Google Scholar
  51. Zorenko, T.A., Obshchestvennye polevki podroda Sumeriomys: sistematika, biologiya i povedenie (Social Voles of the Subgenus Sumeriomys: Taxonomy, Biology, and Behavior), Saarbrücken: Palmarium Acad. Publ., 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Severtsov Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations