The nasty neighbour in the striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) steals paternity and elicits aggression

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Schradin, Carsten ^a,b   Schneider, Carola ^b,c   Lindholm, Anna K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MUS; RHABDOMYS PUMILIO;

EID: 77953695771     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-7-19     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Stamps J. Territorial behavior: testing the assumptions. Adv Study Behav 1994, 23:173-232.
2. Davies NB, Houston AI. Owners and satellites: the economics of territory defence in the pied wagtail, Motacilla alba. J Anim Ecol 1981, 50:157-180.
3. Gese EM. Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, and why. Can J Zool 2001, 79:980-987.
4. Taborsky M. Broodcare helpers in the cichlid fish Lamprologus brichardi: their costs and benefits. Anim Behav 1984, 32:1236-1252.
5. Ewald PW, Orians GH. Effects of resource depression on use of inexpensive and escalated aggressive behavior: experimental tests using anna hummingbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1983, 12:95-101.
6. Cant MA, Otali E, Mwangyhya F. Fighting and mating between groups in a cooperatively breeding mammal, the banded mongoose. Ethology 2002, 108:541-555.
7. Schradin C, Lamprecht J. Female-biased immigration and male peace keeping in groups of the shell-dwelling cichlid fish Neolamprologus multifasciatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2000, 48:236-242.
8. Putland DA, Goldizen AW. Territorial behaviour in the Tasmanian native hen: group and individual performance. Anim Behav 1998, 56:1455-1463. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0937, 9933542.
9. Lazaro-Perea C. Intergroup interactions in wild common marmosets, Calithrix jacchus: territorial defence and asessment of neighbours. Anim Behav 2001, 62:11-21.
10. Baker AJ, Dietz JM. Immigration in wild groups of golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). Am J Primatol 1996, 38:47-56.
11. Anzenberger G. How stranger encounters of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) are influenced by family members: the quality of behaviour. Folia Primatol 1985, 45:204-224.
12. Gray SJ, Jensen SP, Hurst JL. Effects of resource distribution on activity and territory defence in house mice, Mus domesticus. Anim Behav 2002, 63:531-539.
13. Palanza P, Re L, Mainardi D, Brain PF, Parmigiani S. Male and female competitive strategies of wild house mice pairs (Mus musculus domesticus) confronted with intruders of different sex and age in artificial territories. Behaviour 1996, 133:863-882.
14. Trivers RL. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1972, 136-179. Chicago: Aldine, Campbell B.
15. Temeles EJ. The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they 'dear enemies'?. Anim Behav 1994, 47:339-350.
16. Whiting MJ. When to be neighbourly: differential agonistic responses in the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1999, 46:210-214.
17. Müller CA, Manser MB. Nasty neighbours rather than dear enemies in a social carnivore. Proc R Soc B 2007, 274:959-965. 10.1098/rspb.2006.0222, 2141673, 17251103.
18. Brunton DH, Evans B, Cope T, Ji W. A test of the dear enemy hypothesis in female New Zealand bellbirds (Anthornis melanura): female neighbors as threats. Behav Ecol 2008, 19:791-798.
19. Olendorf R, Getty T, Scribner K, Robinson SK. Male red-winged blackbirds distrust unreliable and sexually attractive neighbours. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004, 271:1033-1038.
20. Schradin C, Pillay N. 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 2004, 118:37-47. 10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.37, 15008671.
21. Schradin C, Scantlebury M, Pillay N, König B. 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 2009, 173:376-388. 10.1086/596535, 19199528.
22. Schradin C. Territorial defense in a group living solitary forager: who, where, against whom?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2004, 55:439-446.
23. Schradin C. Whole day follows of the striped mouse. J Ethol 2006, 24:37-43.
24. Schradin C, Pillay N. Demography of the striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) in the succulent karoo. Mammal Biol 2005, 70:84-92.
25. Young AJ, Spong G, Clutton-Brock T. Subordinate male meerkats prospect for extra-group paternity: alternative reproductive tactics in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B 2007, 274:1603-1609.
26. Double MC, Cockburn A. Subordinate superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) parasitize the reproductive success of attractive dominant males. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 2003, 270:379-384.
27. Schradin C, Pillay N. Intraspecific variation in the spatial and social organization of the African striped mouse. J Mammal 2005, 86:99-107.
28. Perrin MR, Ercoli C, Dempster ER. The role of agonistic behaviour in the population of two syntopic African grassland rodents, the striped mouse Rhabdomys pumilio (Sparrman 1784) and the multimammate mouse Mastomys natalensis (A. Smith 1834) (Mammalia Rodentia). Trop Zool 2001, 14:7-29.
29. Teschke M, Mukabayire O, Wiehe T, Tautz D. Identification of selective sweeps in closely related populations of the house mouse based on microsatellite scans. Genetics 2008, 180:1537-1545. 10.1534/genetics.108.090811, 2581955, 18791245.
30. Eccard JA, Wolf JBW. Effects of brood size on multiple-paternity rates: a case for [']paternity share' as an offspring-based estimate. Anim Behav 2009, 78:563-571.
31. Hurst JL, Payne CE, Nevison CM, Marie AD, Humphries RE, Robertson DHL, Cavaggioni A, Beynon RJ. Individual recognition in mice mediated by major urinary proteins. Nature 2001, 414:631-633. 10.1038/414631a, 11740558.
32. Gheusi G, Goodall G, Dantzer R. Individually distinctive odours represent individual conspecifics in rats. Anim Behav 1997, 53:935-944.
33. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA. The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 1976, 24:159-175.
34. Gibbs HL, Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT, White BN, Tabak LM, Hoysak DJ. Realized reproductive success of polygynous red-winged blackbirds revelaed by DNA markers. Science 1990, 250:1394-1397. 10.1126/science.250.4986.1394, 17754986.
35. Richardson DS, Jury FL, Blaakmeer K, Komdeur J, Burke T. Parentage assignment and extra-group paternity in a cooperative breeder: the Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Molec Ecol 2001, 10:2263-2273.
36. Ophir AG, Phelps SM, Sorin AB, Wolff JO. Social but not genetic monogamy is associated with greater breeding success in prairie voles. Anim Behav 2008, 75:1143-1154.
37. Solomon NG, Keane B, Knoch LR, Hogan PJ. Multiple paternity in socially monogamous prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Can J Zool 2004, 82:1667-1671.
38. Klemme I, Eccard JA, Ylönen H. Do female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) mate multiply to improve in previous mates?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2006, 60:415-421.
39. Keil A, Sachser N. Reproductive benefits from female promiscuous mating in a small mammal. Ethology 1998, 104:897-903.
40. Klemme I, Ylönen H, Eccard JA. Long-term fitness benefits of polyandry in a small mammal, the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 2008, 275:1095-1100.
41. Pillay N. Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mamm Biol 2002, 67:212-218.
42. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA. Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Molec Ecol 2002, 11:2195-2212.