Sperm investment in male meadow voles is affected by the condition of the nearby male conspecifics

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1159-1164

  Vaughn, Ashlee A ^a   DelBarco Trillo, Javier ^b   Ferkin, Michael H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^b Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical signals; Copulatory behavior; Food deprivation; Scent marking; Sperm competition; Voles

Indexed keywords

CONSPECIFIC; COPULATION; FERTILIZATION (REPRODUCTION); REPRODUCTIVE COST; RODENT; SCENT MARKING; SPERM COMPETITION;

MICROTUS; MURIDAE;

EID: 56449106653     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn092     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adler NT, Toner JP Jr. 1986. The effects of copulatory behavior on sperm transport and fertility in rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 474:21-32.
2. Bakker J, Baum MJ. 2000. Neuroendocrine regulation of GnRH release in induced ovulators. Front Neuroendocrinol. 21:220-262.
3. Berteaux D, Bety J, Rengifo E, Bergeron J. 1999. Multiple paternity in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus): investigating the role of the female. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 45:283-291.
4. Birkhead TR. 2000. Promiscuity: an evolutionary history of sperm competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.
6. Boonstra R, Xia X, Pavone L. 1993. Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol. 4:83-89.
7. Byrne PG. 2004. Male sperm expenditure under sperm competition risk and intensity in quacking frogs. Behav Ecol. 15:857-863.
8. Candolin U, Reynolds JD. 2002. Adjustments of ejaculation rates in response to risk of sperm competition in a fish, the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269:1549-1553.
9. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2004. Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. Nature. 431:446-449.
10. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2006a. Male meadow voles respond differently to risk and intensity of sperm competition. Behav Ecol. 17:581-585.
11. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2006b. Similarities between female meadow voles mating during post-partum oestrus and raising two concurrent litters and females raising only one litter. Reprod Fertil Dev. 18:751-756.
12. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2006c. Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, cause their mates to ejaculate outside their reproductive tract. Behaviour. 143:1425-1437.
13. delBarco-Trillo J, Ferkin MH. 2007. Risk of sperm competition does not influence copulatory behavior in the promiscuous meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Ethol. 25:139-145.
14. 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.
15. Dewsbury DA. 1982. Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat. 119:601-610.
16. Dewsbury DA, Sawrey DK. 1984. Male capacity as related to sperm production, pregnancy initiation, and sperm competition in deer mice (Peromyscus manicualtus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 16:37-47.
17. Estep DQ. 1988. Copulations by other males shorten the post-ejaculatory intervals of pairs of roof rats, Rattus rattus. Anim Behav. 36:299-300.
18. Ferkin MH. 2007. Effects of previous interactions and sex on over-marking in meadow voles. Behaviour. 144:1297-1313.
19. Ferkin MH, Pierce AP. 2007. Perspectives on over-marking: is it good to be on top? J Ethol. 25:107-116.
20. Ferkin MH, Seamon JO. 1987. Odor preference and social behavior in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus: seasonal differences. Can J Zool. 65:2931-2937.
21. Ferkin MH, Dunsavage J, Johnston RE. 1999. What kind of information do meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, use to distinguish between the top and bottom scent of an over-mark? J Comp Psychol. 113:43-51.
22. Gage AR, Barnard CJ. 1996. Male crickets increase sperm number in relation to competition and female size.Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:349-353.
23. Getz LL, Hofmann JE, McGuire B, Dolan TW III. 2001. Twenty-five years of population fluctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in three habitats in east-central Illinois. J Mammal. 82:22-34.
24. Ginsberg JR, Huck UW. 1989. Sperm competition in mammals. Trends Ecol Evol. 4:74-79.
25. Gomendio M, Harcourt AH, Roldan ERS. 1998. Sperm competition in mammals. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP, editors. Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press. p. 667-751.
26. Gray GD, Dewsbury DA. 1975. A quantitative description of the copulatory behaviour of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Anim Behav. 23:261-267.
27. Hardy DF, DeBold JF. 1972. Effects of coital stimulation upon behavior of the female rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 78:400-408.
28. Huck UW, Quinn RP, Lisk RD. 1985. Determinants of mating success in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) IV. Sperm competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 17:239-252.
29. Kleiman DG. 1977. Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol. 52:39-69.
30. Klemme I, Eccard JA, Ylönen H. 2006. Do female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) mate multiply to improve on previous mates? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:415-421.
31. Madison DM. 1980. An integrated view of the social biology of Microtus pennsylvanicus. Biologist. 62:20-33.
32. Milligan SR. 1982. Induced ovulation in mammals. In: Finn CA, editor. Oxford reviews of reproductive biology. Vol. 4. London: Clarendon Press. p. 1-46.
33. Neff BD, Peng F, Gross MR. 2003. Sperm investment and alternative mating tactics in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Behav Ecol. 14:634-641.
34. Parker GA. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev. 45:525-567.
35. Parker GA, Ball MA, Stockley P, Gage MJG. 1996. Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1291-1297.
36. Pierce AA, Ferkin MH. 2005. Re-feeding and restoration of odor attractivity, odor preferences, and sexual receptivity in food-deprived female meadow voles. Physiol Behav. 84:553-561.
37. Pierce AA, Ferkin MH, Williams TK. 2005. Food-deprivation-induced changes in sexual behavior of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Anim Behav. 70:339-348.
38. Pilastro A, Scaggiante M, Rasotto M. 2002. Individual adjustment of sperm expenditure accords with sperm competition theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 99:9913-9915.
39. Pound N, Gage MJG. 2004. Prudent sperm allocation in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus: a mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment. Anim Behav. 68:819-823.
40. Ramm SA, Stockley P. 2007. Ejaculate allocation under varying sperm competition risk in the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus. Behav Ecol. 18:491-495.
41. Salo AL, Dewsbury DA. 1995. Three experiments on mate choice in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Comp Psychol. 109:42-46.
42. Scaggiante M, Raostto MB, Romualdi C, Pilastro A. 2005. Territorial male gobies respond aggressively to sneakers but do not adjust their sperm expenditure. Behav Ecol. 16:1001-1007.
43. Schaus JM, Sakaluk SK. 2001. Ejaculate expenditures of male crickets in response to varying risk and intensity of sperm competition: not all species play games. Behav Ecol. 12:740-745.
44. Seabloom RW. 1985. Endocrinology. In: Tamarin RH, editor. Biology of New World Microtus. Special Publication No.8. Lawrence (KS): the American Society of Mammalogists. p. 685-724.
45. Shapiro LE, Dewsbury DA. 1986. Male dominance, female choice and male copulatory behavior in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 18:267-274.
46. Simmons LW. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47. Simmons LW, Kvarnemo C. 1997. Ejaculate expenditure by male bush-crickets decreases with sperm competition intensity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1203-1208.
48. Smith C, Reichard M, Jurajda P. 2003. Assessment of sperm competition by European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 53:206-213.
49. Smith RL. 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Orlando (FL): Academic Press.
50. Stockley P, Preston BT. 2004. Sperm competition and diversity in rodent copulatory behaviour. J Evol Biol. 17:1048-1057.
51. Wedell N, Cook PA. 1999. Butterflies tailor their ejaculate in response to sperm competition risk and intensity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:1033-1039.
52. Williams PD, Day T, Cameron E. 2005. The evolution of sperm-allocation strategies and the degree of sperm competition. Evolution. 59:492-499.
53. Wolff JO, Dunlap AS. 2002. Multi-male mating, probability of conception, and litter size in the prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behav Processes. 58:105-110.