Scent marking increases male reproductive success in wild house mice

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 86, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1013-1021

  Thonhauser, Kerstin E ^a   Raveh, Shirley ^a,b   Hettyey, Attila ^a,c   Beissmann, Helmut ^a   Penn, Dustin J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

House mouse; Male male competition; Marking consistency; Mus musculus musculus; Reproductive success; Scent marking; Social preference

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); IGNEOUS INTRUSION; MALE; PATERNITY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RODENT; SCENT MARKING; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TERRITORY;

EID: 84886305017     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Arakawa H., Arakawa K., Blanchard D.C., Blanchard R.J. Scent marking behavior in male C57BL/6J mice: sexual and developmental determination. Behavioural Brain Research 2007, 182:73-79. 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.05.007.
2. Arakawa H., Arakawa K., Blanchard D.C., Blanchard R.J. Anew test paradigm for social recognition evidenced by urinary scent marking behavior in C57BL/6J mice. Behavioural Brain Research 2008, 190:97-104. 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.009.
3. Brashares J.S., Arcese P. Scent marking in a territorial African antelope: I. The maintenance of borders between male oribi. Animal Behaviour 1999, 57:1-10. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0941.
4. Cox C.R., Le Boeuf B.J. Female incitation of male competition: a mechanism in sexual selection. The American Naturalist 1977, 111:317-335. 10.2307/2460066.
5. Crowcroft P. Territoriality in wild house mice, Mus musculus L. Journal of Mammalogy 1955, 36:299-301. 10.2307/1375908.
6. Crowcroft P., Rowe F.P. Social organization and territorial behaviour in the wild house mouse (Mus musculus L.). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1963, 140:517-531. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1963.tb01871.x.
7. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1874, J. Murray, London. 2nd edn.
8. DeFries J.C., McClearn G.E. Social dominance and Darwinian fitness in the laboratory mouse. The American Naturalist 1970, 104:408-411. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459127.
9. Desjardins C., Maruniak J.A., Bronson F.H. Social rank in house mice: differentiation revealed by ultraviolet visualization of urinary marking patterns. Science 1973, 182:939-941. 10.1126/science.182.4115.939.
10. Drickamer L.C. Oestrous female house mice discriminate dominant from subordinate males and sons of dominant from sons of subordinate males by odour cues. Animal Behaviour 1992, 43:868-870. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80212-X.
11. Drickamer L.C. Urine marking and social dominance in male house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Behavioural Processes 2001, 53:113-120. 10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00152-2.
12. Engqvist L. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour 2005, 70:967-971. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.016.
13. Gosling L.M. Areassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1982, 60:89-118. 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1982.tb00492.x.
14. Gosling L.M., Roberts S.C. Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2001, 30:169-217. 10.1016/S0065-3454(01)80007-3.
15. Grafen A., Hails R. Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
16. Gubernick D.J., Addington R.L. The stability of female social and mating preferences in the monogamous California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Animal Behaviour 1994, 47:559-567. 10.1006/anbe.1994.1079.
17. Hurst J.L. The complex network of olfactory communication in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty: urine marking and investigation within family groups. Animal Behaviour 1989, 37:705-725. 10.1016/0003-3472(89)90057-2.
18. Hurst J.L. Urine marking in populations of wild house mice, Mus domesticus Rutty. I. Communication between males. Animal Behaviour 1990, 40:209-222. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80916-9.
19. Hurst J.L. Urine marking in populations of wild house mice, Mus domesticus Rutty. III. Communication between the sexes. Animal Behaviour 1990, 40:233-243. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80918-2.
20. Hurst J.L., Rich T.J. Scent marks as competitive signals of mate quality. Advances in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 1999, 209-225. Kluwer, Dordrecht. R.E. Johnston, D. Müller-Schwarze, E.S. Sorokin (Eds.).
21. Jones R.B., Nowell N.W. Aversive effects of the urine of a male mouse upon the investigatory behaviour of its defeated opponent. Animal Behaviour 1973, 21:707-710. 10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80095-8.
22. Jones R.B., Nowell N.W. Acomparison of the aversive and female attractant properties of urine from dominant and subordinate male mice. Animal Learning and Behavior 1974, 2:141-144. 10.3758/BF03199141.
23. Kalinowski S.T., Taper M.L., Marshall T.C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology 2007, 16:1099-1106. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x.
24. Kavaliers M., Colwell D.D. Odours of parasitized males induce aversive response in female mice. Animal Behaviour 1995, 50:1161-1169. 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80032-8.
25. Kimura T., Hagiwara Y. Regulation of urine marking in male and female mice: effects of sex steroids. Hormones and Behavior 1985, 19:64-70. 10.1016/0018-506X(85)90006-6.
26. Koyama S., Kamimura S. Lowered sperm motility in subordinate social status of mice. Physiology & Behavior 1999, 65:665-669. 10.1016/S0031-9384(98)00205-4.
27. Koyama S., Kamimura S. Influence of social dominance and female odor on the sperm activity of male mice. Physiology & Behavior 2000, 71:415-422. 10.1016/S0031-9384(00)00361-9.
28. Lenington S. Social preferences for partners carrying 'good genes' in wild house mice. Animal Behaviour 1983, 31:325-333. 10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80050-5.
29. Mainardi M., Pasquali A. Socio-sexual preferences of the female mouse (Mus musculus) in relation to the social status of the males. Ateneo Parmense 1973, 9:2-12.
30. Marshall T.C., Slate J., Kruuk L.E., Pemberton J.M. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 1998, 7:639-655. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x.
31. Maruniak J.A., Owen K., Bronson F.K., Desjardins C. Urinary marking in male house mice: responses to novel environmental and social stimuli. Physiology & Behavior 1974, 12:1035-1039. 10.1016/0031-9384(74)90151-6.
32. Maruniak J.A., Owen K., Bronson F.H., DesJardins C. Urinary marking in female house mice: effects of ovarian steroids, sex experience and type of stimulus. Behavioral Biology 1975, 13:211-217. 10.1016/S0091-6773(75)91920-3.
33. Mech S.G., Dunlap A.S., Wolff J.O. Female prairie voles do not choose males based on their frequency of scent marking. Behavioural Processes 2003, 61:101-108. 10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00128-6.
34. Parmigiani S., Brunoni V., Pasquali A. Behavioural influences of dominant, isolated and subordinated male mice on female socio-sexual preferences. Bolletino di Zoologia 1982, 49:31-35. 10.1080/11250008209439369.
35. Parmigiani S., Brunoni V., Pasquali A. Socio-sexual preferences of female mice (Mus musculus domesticus): the influence of social aggressive capacities of isolated or grouped males. Bolletino di Zoologia 1982, 49:73-78. 10.1080/11250008209439374.
36. Penn D.J. Chemical communication: five major challenges in the post-genomics age. Chemical Ecology: From Gene to Ecosystem 2006, 9-18. Springer, Wageningen. M. Dicke, W. Takken (Eds.).
37. Penn D.J., Potts W.K. Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1998, 13:391-396. 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01473-6.
38. Penn D.J., Schneider G., White K., Slev P., Potts W. Influenza infection neutralizes the attractiveness of male odor to female mice (Mus musculus). Ethology 1998, 104:685-694. 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1998.tb00102.x.
39. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2011, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
40. Ralls K. Mammalian scent marking. Science 1971, 171:443-449. 10.1126/science.171.3970.443.
41. Reynolds E. Urination as a social response in mice. Nature 1971, 234:481-483. 10.1038/234481a0.
42. Rich T.J., Hurst J.L. Scent marks as reliable signals of the competitive ability of mates. Animal Behaviour 1998, 56:727-735. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0803.
43. Rich T.J., Hurst J.L. The competing countermarks hypothesis: reliable assessment of competitive ability by potential mates. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:1027-1037. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1217.
44. Rolland C., MacDonald D.W., de Fraipont M., Berdoy M. Free female choice in house mice: leaving best for last. Behaviour 2003, 140:1371-1388. 10.1163/156853903771980639.
45. Sambrook J., Fritsch E.F., Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning. A Laboratory Manual 1989, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, New York. 2nd edn.
46. Schaedelin F.C., Taborsky M. Extended phenotypes as signals. Biological Reviews 2009, 84:293-313. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00075.x.
47. Thomas S. Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:1121-1127. 10.1006/anbe.2002.3014.
48. Walther F.R. Mapping the structure and the marking system of a territory of the Thomson's gazelle. East African Wildlife Journal 1978, 16:167-176. 10.1111/j.1365-2028.1978.tb00437.x.
49. Wolff P., Powell A. Urine patterns in mice: an analysis of male/female counter-marking. Animal Behaviour 1984, 32:1185-1191. 10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80235-3.
50. Wong B.B.M., Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2005, 80:559-571. 10.1017/S1464793105006809.
51. Yamazaki K., Boyse E.A., Mike V., Thaler H.T., Mathieson B.J., Abbott J., Boyse J., Zayas Z.A. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 1976, 144:1324-1335. 10.1084/jem.144.5.1324.
52. Zala S.M., Potts W.K., Penn D.J. Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 15:338-344. 10.1093/beheco/arh022.
53. Zala S.M., Chan B., Bilbo S.D., Potts W.K., Nelson R.J., Penn D.J. Genetic resistance to infection influences a male's sexual attractiveness and modulation of testosterone. Brain Behavior and Immunity 2008, 22:381-387. 10.1016/j.bbi.2007.09.003.