Effects of food availability on proceptivity: A test of the reproduction at all costs and metabolic fuels hypotheses

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 192-197

  Hobbs, Nicholas J ^a   Finger, Antedra A ^a   Ferkin, Michael H ^a  

^a University of Memphis   (United States)

Author keywords

Food availability; Meadow vole; Over marking; Proceptivity; Self grooming

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; CONSPECIFIC; FOOD AVAILABILITY; GROOMING; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MATING BEHAVIOR; METABOLISM; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; REPRODUCTIVE COST; RODENT; SCENT MARKING;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOOD AVAILABILITY; FOOD DEPRIVATION; GROOMING; HISTORY; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NONHUMAN; OLFACTORY DISCRIMINATION; PROCEPTIVITY; REPRODUCTION; REPRODUCTION AT ALL COSTS HYPOTHESIS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; VOLE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; ARVICOLINAE; ENERGY METABOLISM; FECES; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD; FOOD DEPRIVATION; GROOMING; MALE; ODORS; PHEROMONES; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; TERRITORIALITY;

ANIMALIA; MICROTUS; MICROTUS PENNSYLVANICUS; MURIDAE;

EID: 84865992679     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Batzli G.O. Nutrition. Biology of New World Microtus 1985, 779-811. American Society for Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS, special publication 8. R. Tamarin (Ed.).
2. Beach F.A. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals. Horm. Behav. 1976, 7:105-138.
3. Berteaux D., Bety J., Rengifo E., Bergeron J.M. Multiple paternity in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus): investigating the role of the female. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1999, 45:283-291.
4. Birkhead T. Hidden choices of females. Nat. Hist. 2000, 109:66-71.
5. Boonstra R., Xia X.H., Pavone L. Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav. Ecol. 1993, 4:83-89.
6. Boonstra R., McColl C.J., Karels T.J. Reproduction at all costs: how breeding compromises the stress response and survival in male Arctic ground squirrels. Ecology 2001, 82:1930-1946.
7. Bossert W.H., Wilson E.O. The analysis of olfactory communication among animals. J. Theor. Biol. 1963, 5:443-469.
8. Bronson F.H. Mammalian Reproductive Biology 1989, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. Brown R.E., Macdonald D.W. Social Odours in Mammals 1985, vols. 1 and 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
10. Ferkin M.H. Age affects over-marking of opposite-sex marks in meadow voles. Ethology 2010, 116:24-31.
11. Ferkin M.H., Johnston R.E. Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, use multiple sources of scent for sexual recognition. Anim. Behav. 1995, 49:37-44.
12. Ferkin M.H., Pierce A.A. Perspectives on over-marking: is it good to be on top?. J. Ethol. 2007, 25:107-116.
13. Ferkin M.H., Leonard S.T. Self-grooming as a form of olfactory communication in meadow voles and prairie voles (Microtus spp.). Neurobiology of Grooming and Other Related Behaviors 2010, 19-45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. A.V. Kalueff, J. LaPorte (Eds.).
14. Ferkin M.H., Sorokin E.S., Johnston R.E. Self-grooming as a sexually dimorphic communicative behavior in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Anim. Behav. 1996, 51:801-810.
15. Ferkin M.H., Lee D.N., Leonard S.T. The reproductive state of female voles affects their scent marking behavior and the responses of male conspecifics to such marks. Ethology 2004, 110:257-272.
16. Ferkin M.H., Li H.Z., Leonard S.T. Meadow voles and prairie voles differ in the percentage of conspecific marks that they over-mark. Acta Ethol. 2004, 7:1-7.
17. 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.
18. Gill C.J., Rissman E.F. Female sexual behavior is inhibited by short- and long-term food restriction. Physiol. Behav. 1997, 61:387-394.
19. Harriman A.E., Thiessen D.D. Harderian letdown in male Mongolian gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus) contributes to proceptive behavior. Horm. Behav. 1986, 19:213-219.
20. Hobbs N.J., Ferkin M.H. Effect of protein content of the diet on scent marking and over-marking in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behaviour 2011, 148:1027-1044.
21. Hobbs N.J., Aven A.M., Ferkin M.H. Self-grooming response of meadow voles to the odor of opposite-sex conspecifics in relation to the dietary protein content of both sexes. Ethology 2008, 114:1210-1217.
22. Hurst J.L. Urine marking in populations of wild house mice, Mus domesticus Rutty. III. Communication between the sexes. Anim. Behav. 1990, 40:233-243.
23. Hurst J.L., Beynon R.J. Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signaling in mice. Bioassays 2004, 26:1288-1298.
24. Johnston R.E. Olfactory preferences, scent marking and proceptivity in female hamsters. Horm. Behav. 1979, 13:21-39.
25. Johnston R.E. Chemical signals and reproductive behavior. Phermones and Reproduction in Mammals 1983, 3-37. Academic Press, New York. J.G. Vandenbergh (Ed.).
26. Johnston R.E. Chemical communication in rodents: from pheromones to individual recognition. J. Mammal. 2003, 84:1141-1162.
27. Keller B.L. Reproductive patterns. Biology of New World Microtus 1985, 725-778. American Society for Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS, special publication 8. R. Tamarin (Ed.).
28. Leonard S.T., Ferkin M.H., Johnson M.M. The response of meadow voles to an over-mark in which the two donors differ in gonadal hormone status. Anim. Behav. 2001, 62:1171-1177.
29. Leonard S.T., Alizaden-Naderi R., Stokes K., Ferkin M.H. The role of prolactin and testosterone in mediating seasonal differences in the self-grooming behavior of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Physiol. Behav. 2005, 85:461-468.
30. Lindroth R.L., Batzli G.O. Food habits of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in bluegrass and prairie habitats. J. Mammal. 1984, 65:600-606.
31. Madison D.M. Space use and social structure of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1980, 7:65-71.
32. Milligan S.R. Induced ovulation in mammals. Oxford Rev. Reprod. Biol. 1982, 4:1-46.
33. Pierce A.A., Ferkin M.H. Re-feeding and the restoration of odor attractivity, odor preference, and sexual receptivity in food-deprived female voles. Physiol. Behav. 2005, 84:553-561.
34. Pierce A.A., Ferkin M.H., Williams T.K. Food-deprivation-induced changes in sexual behavior of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Anim. Behav. 2005, 70:339-348.
35. Pierce A.A., Iwueke I., Ferkin M.H. Food deprivation and the role of estradiol in mediating sexual behaviors in meadow voles. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 90:353-361.
36. Steiner A.L. Body rubbing, marking, and other scent-related behavior in some ground squirrels (Sciuridae), a descriptive study. Can. J. Zool. 1974, 52:889-906.
37. Stopka P., Macdonald D.W. Signal interchange during mating in the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus): the concept of active and passive signaling. Behaviour 1998, 135:231-249.
38. Stopka P., Macdonald D.W. The market effect in the wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus: selling information on reproductive status. Ethology 1999, 105:969-982.
39. Thiessen D.D. Thermoenergetics and the evolution of pheromone communication. Prog. Psychobiol. Physiol. Psychol. 1977, 7:91-191.
40. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1972, 136-179. Aldine Press, Chicago. B. Campbell (Ed.).
41. Vaughn A.A., deBarco-Trillo J.H., Ferkin M.H. Self-grooming by male meadow voles differs across copulation but is not affected by the risk and intensity of sperm competition. Behaviour 2010, 147:259-274.
42. Wade G.N., Schneider J.E. Metabolic fuels and reproduction in female mammals. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 1992, 16:235-272.
43. Wade G.N., Schneider J.E., Li H.-Y. Control of fertility by metabolic cues. Am. J. Physiol. 1996, 270:E1-E19.
44. Wolff J.O. Why are female small mammals territorial?. Oikos 1993, 68:364-370.
45. Woodward R.L., Schmick M.K., Ferkin M.H. Response of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster (Rodentia, Arvicolidae), to scent over-marks of two same-sex conspecifics: a test of the scent-masking hypothesis. Ethology 1999, 105:1009-1017.
46. Woodward R.L., Bartos K., Ferkin M.H. Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and prairie voles (M. ochrogaster) differ in their responses to the over-marks from opposite- and same-sex conspecifics. Ethology 2000, 106:979-992.
47. Zucker I., Johnston P.G., Frost D. Comparative, physiological, and biochronometric analysis of rodent seasonal reproductive cycles. Prog. Reprod. Biol. 1980, 5:102-133.