Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 971–979 | Cite as

Prevalence of multiple mating by female common dormice, Muscardinus avellanarius

  • Darlina Md. Naim
  • Sandra Telfer
  • Stephanie Sanderson
  • Stephen J. Kemp
  • Phillip C. Watts
Research Article

Abstract

Mating behaviour is an important component of species’ life histories. Knowledge of natural patterns of mating can lead also to more effective management strategies for populations of conservation concern. Despite a high conservation profile many aspects of the biology of the common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) remain unknown, potentially limiting present conservation efforts. We determine the mating behaviour of M. avellanarius at two woodland sites in the UK: (1) Bontuchel (a natural population in Wales) and (2) Wych (a population in England that was established by reintroducing captive-bred animals) by genotyping mothers and litters at a panel of 10 microsatellite loci. Adult female body weight positively correlates with litter size and no apparent reproductive skew was evident. We found that multiple mating by female dormice is prevalent at both sites, with litters containing three or more offspring sired by multiple fathers; moreover, multiple mating is adopted by released animals even after a period of captive breeding where females are mated singly or as a breeding pair. We also present evidence for low proportion of fathers identified in our samples that probably related to unsampled individuals and/or larger than anticipated population sizes. This first report of mating behaviour in M. avellanarius highlights the role of genetic studies to uncover species’ reproductive behaviours and include these data for conservation management.

Keywords

Behaviour Conservation Microsatellite Multiple mating Reproduction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the members of the Northwest Dormouse Partnership, particularly Sarah Bird, Scott Wilson, Rhian Hughes, Sue Tatman, Iolo Lloyd and the Forestry Commission, as well as all of the volunteers that have helped during survey work. This work was funded by Malaysian Government and Universiti Sains Malaysia for Academic Staff Training Scheme (ASTS).

Supplementary material

10592_2011_200_MOESM1_ESM.doc (226 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 226 kb)
10592_2011_200_MOESM2_ESM.doc (37 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 37 kb)

References

  1. Banks SC, Lindenmayers D, Ward J, Taylor AC (2005) The effects of habitat fragmentation via forestry plantation establishment on spatial genotypic structure in the small marsupial carnivore, Anthecinus agilis. Mol Ecol 14:1667–1680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertolino A, Viano C, Currado I (2001) Population dynamics, breeding patterns and spatial use of the garden dormouse Eliomys quercinus in an Alpine habitat. J Zool Lond 253:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkowska A (2010) Seasonal variation of reproductive success under female philopatry and male-biased dispersal in a common vole population. Behav Process 86:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borkowska A, Borowski Z, Krysiuk K (2010) Multiple paternity in free-living root voles (Microtus oeconomus). Behav Process 82:211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bright PW, Morris PA, Mitchell JT (2006) The dormouse conservation handbook. English Nature, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  7. Büchner S, Tubbe SM, Triese SD (2003) Breeding and biological data for the common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) in Eastern Saxony (Germany). Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 49:19–26Google Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH, McAuliffe K (2009) Female mate choice in mammals. Quat Rev Biol 84:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ (1991) Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351:58–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trend Ecol Evol 14:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford JC, Liu ZW, Nelson TA, Nielsen CK, Blooniquist CK (2008) Microsatellite analysis of mating and kinship in beavers (Castor Canadensis). J Mammal 89:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dean MD, Ardlie KG, Nachman MW (2006) The frequency of multiple paternity suggests that sperm competition is common in house mice (Mus domesticus). Mol Ecol 15:4141–4151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeWoody JA, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Nelson WS, Avise JC (2000) Genetic monogamy and biparental care in an externally fertilizing fish, the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Proc R Soc Lond B267:2431–2437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV (2002) Breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. Proc R Soc Lond B269:1655–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firman RC, Simmons LW (2008) The frequency of multiple paternity predicts variation in testes size among island populations of house mice. J Evol Biol 21:1524–1533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT; a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices, version 2.9.3.2. Available via http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html. Assessed 30 June 2009
  17. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2:618–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauber ME, Lacey EA (2005) Bateman’s principle in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: the effects of non-breeding alloparents on variability of female and male reproductive success. Integr Comp Biol 45:903–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hohoff C, Franzen K, Sachser N (2003) Female choice in a promiscuous wild guinea pig, the yellow-toothed cavy (Galea musteloides). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:341–349Google Scholar
  20. Holand Ø, Weladji RB, Gjøstein H, Kumpula J, Smith ME, Nieminen M, Røed KH (2004) Reproductive effort in relation to maternal social rank in reindeer Rangifer tarandus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt M, Vangen O, Farstad W (2004) Components of litter size in mice after 110 generations of selection. Reproduction 127:587–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoogland JL (1995) The black-tailed prairie dog: social life of a burrowing mammal. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. IUCN (2009) European Mammal Assessment. Available via http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/. Assessed 11 May 2009
  24. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonsson P, Agrell J, Koskela E, Mappes T (2002) Effects of litter size on pup defence and weaning success of neighbouring bank voles females. Can J Zool 80:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG (2008) The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: a review and analysis. Biol Conserv 141:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Juŝkaitis R (2003) Abundance dynamics and reproduction success in the common dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius, populations in Lithuania. Folia Zool 52:239–248Google Scholar
  28. Keane B (1990) Dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Anim Behav 40:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keane B, Waser PM, Creel SR, Creel NM, Elliott LF, Minchella DJ (1994) Subordinate reproduction in dwarf mongooses. Anim Behav 47:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keil A, Sacher N (1998) Reproductive benefits from female promiscuous mating in a small mammal. Ethol 104:897–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kennis J, Sluydts V, Leirs H, Van Hooft P (2008) Polyandry and polygyny in an African rodent pest species, Mastomys natalensis. Mammal 72:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinahan AA, Pillay N (2008) Dominance status influences female reproductive strategy in a territorial African rodent Rhabdomys pumiio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lane JE, Boutin S, Gunn MR, Slate J, Coltman DW (2008) Female multiple mating and paternity in free-ranging North American red squirrels. Anim Behav 75:1927–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laurent L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee PL, Hays GC (2004) Polyandry in a marine turtle: females make the best of a bad job. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 101:6530–6535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macdonald DW, Tattersall F (2003) The state of Britain’s mammals. Mammal Trust UK/People’s Trust for Endangered Species, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  37. Marin G, Pilastro A (1994) Communally breeding dormice Glis glis are close kin. Anim Behav 47:1485–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mateo JM (2003) Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matocq MD, Lacey EA (2004) Philopatry, kin clusters, and genetic relatedness in a population of woodrats (Neotoma macrotis). Behav Ecol 15:647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Md. Naim D, Kemp SJ, Telfer S, Watts PC (2009) Isolation and characterization of 10 microsatellite loci in the common dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius. Mol Ecol Res 9:1010–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Md. Naim D, Telfer S, Tatman S, Bird S, Kemp SJ, Watts PC (submitted) Reintroduced common dormice, Muscardinus avellanarius, retain their natural dispersal behaviourGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore JA, Nelson NJ, Keall SN, Daugherty CH (2007) Implications of social dominance and multiple paternity for the genetic diversity of a captive-bred reptile population (tuatara). Conserv Genet 9:1243–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moran S, Turner PD, O’Reilly C (2009) Multiple paternity in the European hedgehog. J Zool 278:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris PA (2004) Dormice. British Natural History Series. Whittet Books Ltd, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  46. Nevo E, Amir E (1964) Variation in reproduction and hibernation patterns of the forest dormouse. J Mammal 45:69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nievergelt CM, Digby LJ, Ramakrishnan U, Woodruff DS (2000) Genetic analysis of group composition and breeding system in a wild common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) population. Int J Primatol 2:11–20Google Scholar
  48. Pilastro A (1992) Communal nesting between breeding females in a free-living population of fat dormouse Glis glis. Ital J Zool 59:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pilastro A, Tavecchia G, Marin G (2003) Long living and reproduction skipping in the fat dormouse. Ecology 84:1784–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pillay N (2002) Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mamm Biol 67:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP, version 1.2. Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicisms. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  53. Reeve HK, Westneat DF, Noon WA, Sherman PW, Aquadro CF (1990) DNA fingerprinting reveals high-levels of inbreeding in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat. Proc Ant Acad Sci USA 87:2496–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schilling P, North W, Bogart R (1968) The effect of sire on litter size in mice. J Hered 59:351–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmoll T, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2003) Long-term fitness consequences of female extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous passerine. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Gibbs HL (2002) Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus): sex specific patterns of annual reproductive success and survival. Evolution 56:2519–2529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Millar JS, Gibbs HL (2004) Sexual selection and mating patterns in a mammal with female-biased sexual dimorphism. Behav Ecol 15:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 36:125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Solomon NG, Keane B (2007) Reproductive strategies in female rodents. In: Wolff JO, Sherman PW (eds) Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, pp 42–57Google Scholar
  60. Stockley P (2003) Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex® 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang J, Santure AW (2009) Parentage and sibship inference from multi-locus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 181:1579–1594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waser PM, DeWoody JA (2006) Multiple paternity in philoptric rodent: the interation of competition and choice. Behav Ecol 17:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wauters L, Dhondt AA (1989) Body weight, longevity and reproductive success in red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). Oikos 58:637–651Google Scholar
  66. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:27–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yasui Y (1998) The “genetic benefits” of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2001) Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim Behav 61:1051–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darlina Md. Naim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandra Telfer
    • 3
  • Stephanie Sanderson
    • 4
  • Stephen J. Kemp
    • 1
    • 5
  • Phillip C. Watts
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Integrative BiologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia
  3. 3.Institute of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  4. 4.North of England Zoological Society, Chester ZooUpton-by-ChesterUK
  5. 5.International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)NairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations