Female prairie vole mate-choice is affected by the males' birth litter composition

Physiology and Behavior

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 93-100

  Curtis, J Thomas ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gonadal steroids; Intrauterine position; Microtus; Perinatal development

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; LITTER SIZE; MATE CHOICE; NONHUMAN; PERINATAL DEVELOPMENT; PRAIRIE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX RATIO; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SIBLING; SOCIAL INTERACTION; VOLE; WEANING; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARVICOLINAE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; MALE; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; PHYSIOLOGY; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; ARVICOLINAE; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; LITTER SIZE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; SEX FACTORS; SIBLINGS;

EID: 77953916106     PISSN: 00319384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.04.020     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Drickamer L.C., Gowaty P.A., Holmes C.M. Free female mate choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance. Anim Behav 2000, 59:371-378.
2. Gowaty P.A., Drickamer L.C., Schmid-Holmes S. Male house mice produce fewer offspring with lower viability and poorer performance when mated with females they do not prefer. Anim Behav 2003, 65:95-103.
3. Drickamer L.C., Gowaty P.A., Wagner D.M. Free mutual mate preferences in house mice affect reproductive success and offspring performance. Anim Behav 2003, 65:105-114.
4. Oliveras D., Novak M. A comparison of paternal behavior in the meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus, the pine vole Microtus pinetorum and the prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 1986, 34:519-526.
5. Solomon N.G. Comparison of parental behavior in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Can J Zool 1993, 71:434-437.
6. Ferguson B., Fuentes S.M., Sawrey D.K., Dewsbury D.A. Male preferences for unmated versus mated females in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). J Comp Psychol 1986, 100:243-247.
7. Wright S.L., Brown R.E. The importance of paternal care on pup survival and pup growth in Peromyscus californicus when required to work for food. Behav Processes 2002, 60:41-52.
8. Gubernick D.J., Teferi T. Adaptive significance of male parental care in a monogamous mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2000, 267:147-150.
9. McGuire B., Russell K.D., Mahoney T., Novak M. The effects of mate removal on pregnancy success in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Biol Reprod 1992, 47:37-42.
10. Kleiman D.G. Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 1977, 52:39-69.
11. Fraley R.C., Brumbaugh C.C., Marks M.J. The evolution and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005, 89:731-746.
12. Iwasa Y., Harada Y. Female mate preference to maximize paternal care. II. Female competition leads to monogamy. Am Nat 1998, 151:367-382.
13. Patris B., Baudoin C. A comparative study of parental care between two rodent species: implications for the mating system of the mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus. Behav Processes 2000, 51:35-43.
14. Ribble D.O. Lifetime reproductive success and its correlates in the monogamous rodent, Peromyscus californicus. J Anim Ecol 1992, 61:457-468.
15. Boonstra R., Gilbert B.S., Krebs C.J. Mating systems and sexual dimorphism in mass in Microtines. J Mammal 1993, 74:224-229.
16. Ophir A.G., Phelps S.M., Sorin A.B., Wolff J.O. Morphological, genetic and behavioral comparisons of two prairie vole populations in the field and laboratory. J Mammal 2007, 88:989-999.
17. Dewsbury D.A. The comparative psychology of monogamy. Nebr Symp Motiv 1987, 35:1-50.
18. Gruder-Adams S., Getz L.L. Comparison of the mating system and paternal behavior in Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus pennsylvanicus. J Mammal 1985, 66:165-167.
19. Getz L.L., Carter C.S., Gavish L. The mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: field and laboratory evidence for pair-bonding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1981, 8:189-194.
20. Carter C.S., Getz L.L. Monogamy and the prairie vole. Sci Am 1993, 268:100-106.
21. Pizzuto T., Getz L.L. Female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) fail to form a new pair after loss of mate. Behav Processes 1998, 43:79-86.
22. Thomas S.A., Wolff J.O. Pair bonding and "the widow effect" in female prairie voles. Behav Processes 2004, 67:47-54.
23. Shapiro L.E., Dewsbury D.A. Male dominance, female choice and male copulatory behavior in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1986, 18:267-274.
24. Klein S.L., Gamble H.R., Nelson R.J. Trichinella spiralis infection in voles alters female odor preference but not partner preference. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1999, 45:323-329.
25. Thomas S.A. Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 2002, 63:1121-1127.
26. Mech S.G., Dunlap A.S., Wolff J.O. Female prairie voles do not choose males based on their frequency of scent marking. Behav Processes 2003, 61:101-108.
27. Johnston R.E., Sorokin E.S., Ferkin M.H. Female voles discriminate males' over-marks and prefer top-scent males. Anim Behav 1997, 54:679-690.
28. Spritzer M.D., Solomon N.G., Meikle D.B. Social dominance among male meadow voles is inversely related to reproductive success. Ethology 2006, 112:1027-1037.
29. Pierce J.D., Dewsbury D.A. Female preferences for unmated versus mated males in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). J Comp Psychol 1991, 105:165-171.
30. Ophir A.G., Crino O.L., Wilkerson Q.C., Wolff J.O., Phelps S.M. Female-directed aggression predicts paternal behavior, but female prairie voles prefer affiliative males to paternal males. Brain Behav Evol 2008, 71:32-40.
31. Ferkin M.H., Sorokin E.S., Johnston R.E., Lee C.J. Attractiveness of scents varies with protein content of the diet in meadow voles. Anim Behav 1997, 53:133-141.
32. Solomon N.G. Body size and social preferences of male and female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 1993, 45:1031-1033.
33. Spritzer M.D., Meikle D.B., Solomon N.G. Female choice based on male spatial ability and aggressiveness among meadow voles. Anim Behav 2005, 69:1121-1130.
34. Salo A.L., Dewsbury D.A. Three experiments on mate choice in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Comp Psychol 1995, 109:42-46.
35. Wang Z., Young L.J., Liu Y., Insel T.R. Species differences in vasopressin receptor binding are evident early in development: comparative anatomic studies in prairie and montane voles. J Comp Neurol 1997, 378:535-546.
36. Morley-Fletcher S., Palanza P., Parolaro D., Vigano D., Laviola G. Intrauterine position has long-term influence on brain mu-opioid receptor density and behaviour in mice. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2003, 28:386-400.
37. Zimmerberg B., Brown R.C. Prenatal experience and postnatal stress modulate the adult neurosteroid and catecholaminergic stress responses. Int J Dev Neurosci 1998, 16:217-228.
38. Axelson J.F., Smith M., Duarte M. Prenatal flutamide treatment eliminates the adult male rat's dependency upon vasopressin when forming social-olfactory memories. Horm Behav 1999, 36:109-118.
39. Marchlewska-Koj A., Kapusta J., Kruczek M. Prenatal stress modifies behavior in offspring of bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Physiol Behav 2003, 79:671-678.
40. Marchlewska-Koj A., Kruczek M., Kapusta J., Pochron E. Prenatal stress affects the rate of sexual maturation and attractiveness in bank voles. Physiol Behav 2003, 79:305-310.
41. Dominguez-Salazar E., Camacho F.J., Paredes R.G. Prenatal blockade of androgen receptors reduces the number of intromissions needed to induce conditioned place preference after paced mating in female rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2005, 81:871-878.
42. Wang C.T., Shui H.A., Huang R.L., Tai M.Y., Peng M.T., Tsai Y.F. Sexual motivation is demasculinized, but not feminized, in prenatally stressed male rats. Neuroscience 2006, 138:357-364.
43. Lonstein J.S., Rood B.D., De Vries G.J. Parental responsiveness is feminized after neonatal castration in virgin male prairie voles, but is not masculinized by perinatal testosterone in virgin females. Horm Behav 2002, 41:80-87.
44. Roberts R.L., Zullo A., Gustafson E.A., Carter C.S. Perinatal steroid treatments alter alloparental and affiliative behavior in prairie voles. Horm Behav 1996, 30:576-582.
45. Cushing B.S., Okorie U., Young L.J. The effects of neonatal castration on the subsequent behavioural response to centrally administered arginine vasopressin and the expression of V1a receptors in adult male prairie voles. J Neuroendocrinol 2003, 15:1021-1026.
46. Lonstein J.S., De Vries G.J. Influence of gonadal hormones on the development of parental behavior in adult virgin prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behav Brain Res 2000, 114:79-87.
47. Lonstein J.S., Rood B.D., De Vries G.J. Unexpected effects of perinatal gonadal hormone manipulations on sexual differentiation of the extrahypothalamic arginine-vasopressin system in prairie voles. Endocrinology 2005, 146:1559-1567.
48. Bales K.L., Abdelnabi M., Cushing B.S., Ottinger M.A., Carter C.S. Effects of neonatal oxytocin manipulations on male reproductive potential in prairie voles. Physiol Behav 2004, 81:519-526.
49. Pournajafi-Nazarloo H., Carr M.S., Papademeteriou E., Schmidt J.V., Cushing B.S. Oxytocin selectively increases ER alpha mRNA in the neonatal hypothalamus and hippocampus of female prairie voles. Neuropeptides 2007, 41:39-44.
50. Roberts R.L., Williams J.R., Wang A.K., Carter C.S. Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: influence of the sire and geographical variation. Anim Behav 1998, 55:1131-1140.
51. Phelps S.M., Young L.J. Extraordinary diversity in vasopressin (V1a) receptor distributions among wild prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): patterns of variation and covariation. J Comp Neurol 2003, 466:564-576.
52. Roberts R.L., Cushing B.S., Carter C.S. Intraspecific variation in the induction of female sexual receptivity in prairie voles. Physiol Behav 1998, 64:209-212.
53. Cushing B.S., Martin J.O., Young L.J., Carter C.S. The effects of peptides on partner preference formation are predicted by habitat in prairie voles. Horm Behav 2001, 39:48-58.
54. Rose R.K., Gaines M.S. The reproductive cycle of Microtus ochrogaster in eastern Kansas. Ecol Monogr 1978, 48:21-42.
55. Clark M.M., Stiver K., Teall T., Galef B.G. Nursing one litter of Mongolian gerbils while pregnant with another: effects on daughters' mate attachment and fecundity. Anim Behav 2006, 71:235-241.
56. Dimitsantos E., Escorihuela R.M., Fuentes S., Armario A., Nadal R. Litter size affects emotionality in adult male rats. Physiol Behav 2007, 92:708-716.
57. Hernandez-Tristan R., Arevalo C., Canals S. Effect of prenatal uterine position on male and female rats sexual behavior. Physiol Behav 1999, 67:401-408.
58. Ryan B.C., Vandenbergh J.G. Intrauterine position effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2002, 26:665-678.
59. vom Saal F.S., Clark M.M., Galef J.B.G., Drickamer L.C., Vandenbergh J.G. Intrauterine position phenomenon. Encyclopedia Reprod 1999, 2:893-900.
60. vom Saal F.S. Sexual differentiation in litter-bearing mammals: influence of sex of adjacent fetuses in utero. J Anim Sci 1989, 67:1824-1840.
61. Clark M.M., Vonk J.M., Galef B.G. Intrauterine position, parenting, and nest-site attachment in male Mongolian gerbils. Dev Psychobiol 1998, 32:177-181.
62. vom Saal F.S. Variation in Phenotype Due to Random Intrauterine Positioning of Male and Female Fetuses in Rodents. J Reprod Fertil 1981, 62:633-650.
63. Zielinski W.J., Vandenbergh J.G. Effect of intrauterine position and social density on age of first reproduction in wild-type female house mice (Mus musculus). J Comp Psychol 1991, 105:134-139.
64. Clark M.M., Galef B.G. A male gerbil's intrauterine position affects female response to his scent marks. Physiol Behav 1994, 55:1137-1139.
65. vom Saal F.S., Bronson F.H. In utero proximity of female mouse fetuses to males: effect on reproductive performance during later life. Biol Reprod 1978, 19:842-853.
66. Getz L.L., Hofmann J.E. Social organization in free-living Prairie Voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1986, 18:275-282.
67. Mendl M. The effects of litter size variation on mother-offspring relationships and behavioral and physical development in several mammalian species (principally rodents). J Zool 1988, 215:15-34.
68. Rodel H.G., Prager G., Stefanski V., von Hoist D., Hudson R. Separating maternal and litter-size effects on early postnatal growth in two species of altricial small mammals. Physiol Behav 2008, 93:826-834.
69. Solomon N.G. Effect of the preweaning environment on subsequent reproduction in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 1994, 48:331-341.
70. Clarke F.M., Faulkes C.G. Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1999, 266:1995-2002.
71. Lenington S., Coopersmith C., Williams J. Genetic basis of mating preferences in wild house mice. Am Zool 1992, 32:40-47.
72. Carter C.S., Witt D.M., Schneider J., Harris Z.L., Volkening D. Male stimuli are necessary for female sexual behavior and uterine growth in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Horm Behav 1987, 21:74-82.
73. Taylor S.A., Salo A.L., Dewsbury D.A. Estrus induction in four species of voles (Microtus). J Comp Psychol 1992, 106:366-373.
74. Zhang J.J., Shi D.Z., Sun L.X. The effect of male competition on female choice in Brandt's vole, Lasiopodomys brandti. Folia Zool 2006, 55:123-129.
75. Eisenberg N., Fabes R.A., Murphy B., Maszk P., Smith M., Karbon M. The role of emotionality and regulation in childrens social functioning: a longitudinal study. Child Dev 1995, 66:1360-1384.
76. Grippo A.J., Lamb D.G., Carter C.S., Porges S.W. Cardiac regulation in the socially monogamous prairie vole. Physiol Behav 2007, 90:386-393.
77. Ordyan N., Pivina S., Akulova V. Effects of impaired testosterone metabolism during prenatal ontogenesis on the level of anxiety and behavior of rats in a novel environment. Neurosci Behav Physiol 2007, 37:435-441.
78. Uller T. Sex-specific sibling interactions and offspring fitness in vertebrates: patterns and implications for maternal sex ratios. Biol Rev 2006, 81:207-217.
79. Orlebeke J.F., van Baal G.C., Boomsma D.I., Neeleman D. Birth weight in opposite sex twins as compared to same sex dizygotic twins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993, 50:95-98.
80. Roberts R.L., Wolf K.N., Sprangel M.E., Rall W.F., Wildt D.E. Prolonged mating in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) increases likelihood of ovulation and embryo number. Biol Reprod 1999, 60:756-762.
81. Ophir A.G., Phelps S.M., Sorin A.B., Wolff J.O. Social but not genetic monogamy is associated with greater breeding success in prairie voles. Anim Behav 2008, 75:1143-1154.
82. Ontogeny Nadeau J.H. Biology of New World Microtus. American Society of Mammalogists, Special Publication 1985, 8:254-285. R.H. Tamarin (Ed.).
83. Kerchner M., Malsbury C.W., Ward O.B., Ward I.L. Sexually dimorphic areas in the rat medial amygdala: resistance to the demasculinizing effect of prenatal stress. Brain Res 1995, 672:251-260.
84. Tran T.D., Cronise K., Marino M.D., Jenkins W.J., Kelly S.J. Critical periods for the effects of alcohol exposure on brain weight, body weight, activity and investigation. Behav Brain Res 2000, 116:99-110.
85. Hayes U.L., De Vries G.J. Role of pregnancy and parturition in induction of maternal behavior in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Horm Behav 2007, 51:265-272.
86. McGuire B., Henyey E., McCue E., Bemis W.E. Parental behavior at parturition in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). J Mammal 2003, 84:513-523.
87. Wang Z.X., Liu Y., Young L.J., Insel T.R. Hypothalamic vasopressin gene expression increases in both males and females postpartum in a biparental rodent. J Neuroendocrinol 2000, 12:111-120.
88. Storey A.E., Walsh C.J. Are chemical cues as effective as pup contact for inducing paternal behavior in meadow voles. Behaviour 1994, 131:139-151.
89. Wynne-Edwards K.E., Timonin M.E. Paternal care in rodents: Weakening support for hormonal regulation of the transition to behavioral fatherhood in rodent animal models of biparental care. Horm Behav 2007, 52:114-121.