Reduced reproductive success in voles Microtus arvalis and Myodes glareolus: Male presence negatively affects offspring survival and their growth rates

Gromov V.S.

P. 11-18

The effect of the presence or absence of the male on pup survival and pup growth was measured from birth through day 30 after birth in the common vole (Microtus arvalis) and the bank vole (Myodes glareolus). It was found that the presence of the male can result in some decrease in the offspring survival in both species under study. In the common vole, the growth rates of pups reared by single females were significantly higher than in the pups reared by both parents, and the presence of the sire negatively affected the growth rates of the young males. As for the bank vole, the presence of the male was found to have no effect on the growth rates of the young individuals. The results of the study indicate a decrease in reproductive success, and, accordingly, in fitness, of males of the species under study, especially in the common vole, if they choose a reproductive strategy based on pair bonding and biparental care. Possible factors favoring the formation of family groups and increasing individual indirect fitness in social (biparental) rodent species are discussed.DOI: 10.15298/rusjtheriol.20.1.02

• Adler G.H., Wilson M.L. & Derosa M.J. 1987. Effects of adults on survival and recruitment of Peromyscus leucopus // Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol.65. P.2519–2544.
• Ahroon J.K. & Fidura F.G. 1976. The influence of the male on maternal behaviour in the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) // Animal Behaviour. Vol.24. P.372–375.
• Anderson P.K. 1989. Dispersal in rodents: A resident fitness hypothesis. Provo, UT: American Society of Mammologists. 289 p.
• Bashenina N.V. 1962. [The ecology of the common vole and some features of its geographic variability.] Мoscow: Moscow State University. 307 p. [In Russian]
• Bashenina N.V. & Meyer M.N. 1994. [Postnatal period. Growth // The common vole: Sibling species.] Moscow: Nauka Publ. P.242–245. [In Russian]
• Bashenina N.V., Meyer M.N. & Zorenko T.A. 1994. [Development // The common vole: Sibling species.] Moscow: Nauka Publ. P.253–266. [In Russian]
• Blumstein D.T. & Armitage K.B. 1998. Life history consequences of social complexity: a comparative study of ground-dwelling sciurids // Behavioral Ecology. Vol.9. P.8–19.
• Bujalska G. 1994. Female and male territoriality in the bank vole // Jarman P.J. & Rossitier A. (eds.). Animal societies: Individuals, interactions and organization. Kyoto: Kyoto Univ. Press. P.56–69.
• Bujalska G. & Saitoh T. 2000. Territoriality and its consequences // Polish Journal of Ecology. Vol.48. Suppl. P.37–49.
• Calhoun J.B. 1962. The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. Bethesda, Maryland. 264 p.
• Cantoni D. & Brown R.E. 1997. Paternal investment and reproductive success in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus // Animal Behaviour. Vol.54. P.377–386.
• Curtis J.T., Liu Y., Aragona B.J. & Wang Z. 2007. Neural regulation of social behavior in rodents // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.185–194.
• De Jonge G. 1983. Aggression and group formation in the voles Microtus agrestis, M. arvalis and Clethrionomys glareolus in relation to intra- and interspecific competition // Behaviour. Vol.84. P.1–73.
• Dudley D. 1974a. Paternal behaviour in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus // Behavioral Biology. Vol.11. P.247–252.
• Dudley D. 1974b. Contributions of parental care to the growth and development of the young Peromyscus californicus // Behavioral Biology. Vol.11. P.155–156.
• Eisenberg J.F. 1966. The social organization of mammals // Handbook of Zoology Vol.10. P.1–192.
• Elwood R.W. & Broom D.M. 1978. The influence of litter size and parental behaviour on the development of Mongolian gerbil pups // Animal Behaviour. Vol.26. P.438–454.
• Emlen S.T. 1991. Evolution of cooperative breeding in birds and mammals // Krebs J.R. & Davies N.B. (eds.). Behavioral Ecology. London: Blackwell. P.301–337.
• Emlen S.T. 1994. Benefits, constraints and the evolution of the family // Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol.9. P.282–284.
• Gerling S. & Yahr P. 1979. Effect of the male parent on pup survival in Mongolian gerbils // Animal Behaviour. Vol.27. P.310–311.
• Gromov V.S. 2008. [The spatial-and-ethological population structure in rodents.] Moscow: KMK Press. 582 p. [In Russian]
• Gromov V.S. 2011a. Pair-bonding and parental care in cricetid rodents: A comparative study // Acta Theriologica. Vol.56. P.23–33.
• Gromov V.S. 2011b. Biparental care, tactile stimulation, and evolution of sociality in rodents // Journal of Evolutionary Biology Research. Vol.3. P.33–43.
• Gromov V.S. 2011c. Parental care, tactile stimulation and sociality evolution in rodents: Behavioural, physiological and developmental aspects. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publ. 104 p.
• Gromov V.S. 2013. [Parental care in rodents: Ethological, physiological and evolutionary aspects.] Moscow: KMK Press. 338 p. [In Russian]
• Gromov V.S. 2014a. Complicated social structure and the evolution of sociality in rodents: Cooperation as the main promoting factor. // Watson P. (ed.). Social Behavior: Evolutionary Pathways, Environmental Influences and Impairments. NY: Nova Science Publ. P.71–119.
• Gromov V.S. 2014b. The early experience of tactile stimulation and its behavioral consequences related to socialization in mammals // Jaworski J.A. (ed.). Advances in Sociology Research. NY: Nova Science Publ. P.1–28.
• Gromov V.S. 2018. The evolution of sociality in rodents: Environments and selective forces promoting grouping. LAP Lambert Acad. Publ. 163 p.
• Gromov V.S. 2020a. Paternal care in rodents: Ultimate causation and proximate mechanisms // Russian Journal of Theriology. Vol.19. No.1. P.1–20.
• Gromov V.S. 2020b. [Relationship between the social structure and potential reproductive success in muroid rodents (Rodentia, Myomorpha)] // Povolzhskii Journal of Ecology. No.1. P.15–30. [In Russian]
• Gromov V.S. & Osadchuk L.V. 2013. Parental care and testosterone in males of the bank vole (Myodes glareolus): Sensitization and androgenic stimulation of paternal behavior // Biology Bulletin. Vol.40. P.114–118.
• Gromov V.S. & Voznesenskaya V.V. 2013. Care of young, aggressiveness, and secretion of testosterone in male rodents: A correlation analysis // Biology Bulletin. Vol.40. P.463–470.
• Gubernick D.J., Wright S.L. & Brown R.E. 1993. The significance of father’s presence for offspring survival in the monogamous California mouse, Peromyscus californicus // Animal Behaviour. Vol.46. P.539–546.
• Gubernick D.J. & Teferi T. 2000. Adaptive significance of male parental care in a monogamous mammal // Proceedings of Royal Society (Lond.). Ser.B. Vol.267. P.147–150.
• Hamilton W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior // Journal of Theoretical Biology. Vol.7. P.1–52.
• Hartung T.G. & Dewsbury D.A. 1979. Paternal behavior of six species of muroid rodents // Behavioral and Neural Biology. Vol.26. P.446–478.
• Hoogland J.L. 1995. The black-tailed prairie dog: Social life of a burrowing mammal. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. 285 p.
• Kleiman D.G. 1977. Monogamy in mammals // Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol.52. P.39–69.
• Klippel J.A. 1979. Does the male gerbil parent (Meriones unguiculatus) contribute to pup mortality: A reply // Animal Behaviour. Vol.27. P.311–312.
• Krebs J., Lambin X. & Wolff J.O. 2007. Social behavior and self-regulation in murid rodents // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.173–184.
• Kurland J.A. & Gaulin S.J.C. 1984. The evolution of male parental investment: effects of genetic relatedness and feeding ecology on the allocation of reproductive effort // Taub D.W. (ed.). Primate paternalism. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. P.259–308.
• Lacey E.A. 2004. Sociality reduces individual direct fitness in a communally breeding rodent, the colonial tuco-tuco (Ctenomys sociabilis) // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.56. P.449–457.
• Lacey E.A. & Sherman P.W. 1997. Cooperative breeding in naked mole rats: Implications for vertebrate and invertebrate sociality // Solomon N.G. & French J.A. (eds.). Cooperative Breeding in Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. P.267–301.
• Lacey E.A. & Sherman P.W. 2007. The ecology of sociality in rodents // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.243–254.
• Lonstein J.S. & De Vries G.J. 1999. Comparison of the parental behavior of pair-bonded female and male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) // Physiology & Behavior. Vol.66. P.33–40.
• McCarty R. & Southwick C.H. 1977. Patterns of parental care in two cricetid rodents, Onychomys torridus and Peromyscus leucopus // Animal Behaviour. Vol.25. P.945–948.
• McGuire B. & Bemis W.E. 2007. Parental care // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.231–242.
• McGuire B. & Novak M. 1984. A comparison of maternal behaviour in the meadow vole (Mictotus pennsylvanicus), prairie vole (M. ochrogaster) and pine vole (M. pinetorum) // Animal Behaviour. Vol.32. P.1132–1141.
• Nunes S. 2007. Dispersal and philopatry // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.150–162.
• Salo A.L. & French J.A. 1989. Early experience, reproductive success, and development of parental behaviour in Mongolian gerbils // // Animal Behaviour. Vol.38. P.693–702.
• Schradin C. & Pillay N. 2005. The influence of the father on offspring development in the striped mouse // Behavioral Ecology. Vol.16. P.450–455.
• Sokal R.R. & Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd ed. NY: Freeman and Co. 582 p.
• Solomon N.G. 1991. Current indirect fitness benefits associated with philopatry in juvenile prairie voles // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.29. P.277–282.
• Solomon, N.G. 1993. Body size and social preferences of male and female prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster // Animal Behaviour. Vol.45. P.1031–1033.
• Solomon N.G. 2003. A reexamination of factors influencing philopatry in rodents // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.84. P.1182–1197.
• Solomon N.G. & Keane B. 2007. Reproductive strategies in female rodents // Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds.). Rodent Societies: An Ecological & Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press. P.42–56.
• Trivers R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection // Campbell B. (ed.). Sexual selection and descent of man. Chicago: Aldine. P.139–179.
• Wang Z.X. & Novak M.A. 1994a. Alloparental care and the influence of father presence on juvenile prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster // Animal Behaviour. Vol.47. P.282–288.
• Wang Z.X. & Novak M.A. 1994b. Parental care and litter development in primiparous and multiparous prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.75. P.18–23.
• Wolff J.O. 1994. More on juvenile dispersal in mammals // Oikos. Vol.71. P.349–352.
• Wynne-Edwards K.E. & Lisk R.D. 1989. Differential effects of paternal presence on pup survival in two species of dwarf hamsters (Phodopus sungorus and Phodopus campbelli) // Physiology & Behavior. Vol.45. P.465–469.
• Xia X. & Millar J.S. 1988. Paternal behavior by Peromyscus leucopus in enclosures // Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol.66. P.1184–1187.
• Ylönen H. & Viitala J. 1985. Social organization of an enclosed winter population of the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus // Annales Zoologici Fennici. Vol.22. P.353–358.
• Zorenko T.A. 1979. [The population structure of the common vole Microtus arvalis Pall. // Population dynamics and behavior of vertebrates in Latvian Republic.] Riga. P.79–101. [In Russian]