Another genetically promiscuous 'polygynous' mammal: mating system variation in Neotoma fuscipes

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 449-455

  McEachern, M B ^a   McElreath, Richard L ^a   Van Vuren, Dirk H ^a   Eadie, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

dusky footed woodrat; genetic mating system; monogamy; Neotoma fuscipes; parentage analysis; promiscuity

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; GENETIC VARIATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MAMMAL; MONOGAMY; POLYGYNY; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION MODELING; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RODENT; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

MAMMALIA; NEOTOMA; NEOTOMA FUSCIPES;

EID: 58349103147     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.024     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bessa-Gomes C., Legendre S., and Clobert J. Allee effects, mating systems and the extinction risk in populations with two sexes. Ecology Letters 7 (2004) 802-812
2. Birkhead T.R. Promiscuity: an Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition (2000), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
3. Burnham K.P., and Anderson D. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference (2002), Springer-Verlag Telos, New York
4. Bush G.L., Case S.M., Wilson A.C., and Patton J.L. Rapid speciation and chromosomal evolution in mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 74 (1977) 3942-3946
5. Clutton-Brock T.H. Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 236 (1989) 339-372
6. Eberle M., and Kappeler P.M. Sex in the dark: determinants and consequences of mixed male mating tactics in Microcebus murinus, a small solitary nocturnal primate. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57 (2004) 77-90
7. Emlen S.T., and Oring L.W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197 (1977) 215-223
8. Goudet J. FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Journal of Heredity 86 (1995) 485-486
9. Kelly, P. A. 1989. Population ecology and social organization of dusky-footed woodrats, Neotoma fuscipes. Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley.
10. Krebs J.R., and Davies N.B. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology (1993), Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford
11. Linsdale J.M., and Tevis L.P. The Dusky-footed Woodrat (1951), University of California Press, Berkeley
12. Lynch M.F., Fresnock A.L., and Van Vuren D.H. Home range and social structure of the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). Northwestern Naturalist 75 (1994) 73-75
13. McEachern, M. B. 2005. Behavioral variation and genetic structure in dusky-footed woodrats, Neotoma fuscipes. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis.
14. McEachern M.B., Eadie J.M., and Van Vuren D.H. Local genetic structure and relatedness in a solitary mammal, Neotoma fuscipes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61 (2007) 1459-1469
15. McEachern M.B., Eagles-Smith C.A., Efferson C.M., and Van Vuren D.H. Evidence for local specialization in a generalist mammalian herbivore, Neotoma fuscipes. Oikos 113 (2006) 440-448
16. Marshall T.C., Slate J., Kruuk L.E.B., and Pemberton J.M. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 7 (1998) 639-655
17. Matocq M.D., and Lacey E.A. Philopatry, kin clusters, and genetic relatedness in a population of woodrats (Neotoma macrotis). Behavioral Ecology 15 (2004) 647-653
18. Parker P.G., and Waite T.A. Mating systems, effective population size, and conservation of natural populations. In: Clemmons J.R., and Buchholz R. (Eds). Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild (1997), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 243-261
19. Randall J.A. Mating strategies of a nocturnal, desert rodent (Dipodomys spectabilis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28 (1991) 215-220
20. Rathbun G.B. The social structure and ecology of elephant shrews. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, Supplement 20 (1979) 1-76
21. Ribble D.O. The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29 (1991) 161-166
22. Ribble D.O. Lifetime reproductive success and its correlates in the monagamous rodent, Peromyscus californicus. Journal of Animal Ecology 61 (1992) 457-468
23. Rousset F., and Raymond M. Testing heterozygote excess and deficiency. Genetics 140 (1995) 1413-1419
24. Shao J. An asymptotic theory for linear model selection. Statistica Sinica 7 (1997) 221-264
25. Shuster S.M., and Wade M.J. Mating Systems and Strategies (2003), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
26. Solomon N.G. Body size and social preferences of male and female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behavior 45 (1993) 1031-1033
27. Soltis J., and McElreath R. Can females gain extra paternal investment by mating with multiple males? A game theoretic approach. American Naturalist 158 (2001) 519-529
28. Storz J.F., Bhat H.R., and Kunz T.H. Genetic consequences of polygyny and social structure in an Indian fruit bat, Cynopterus sphinx I. Inbreeding, out breeding, and population subdivision. Evolution 55 (2001) 1215-1223
29. Sugg D.W., Chesser R.K., Dobson F.S., and Hoogland J.L. Population genetics meets behavioral ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11 (1996) 338-342
30. Topping M.G., and Millar J.S. Mating success of male bushy-tailed woodrats: when bigger is not always better. Behavioral Ecology 10 (1999) 161-168
31. Vreeland J.K., and Tietje W.D. Counts of woodrat houses to index relative population abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 (1999) 337-343
32. Wallen, K. 1977. Social organization in the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes): field studies and laboratory experiments. Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley.
33. Waterman J. Male mating strategies in rodents. In: Wolff J.O., and Sherman P.W. (Eds). Rodent Societies: an Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective (2007), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 27-41
34. Wolff J.O., and Macdonald D.W. Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19 (2004) 127-134
35. Wright S. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15 (1951) 323-354