Register      Login
Reproduction, Fertility and Development Reproduction, Fertility and Development Society
Vertebrate reproductive science and technology
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Paternal care in the mound-building mouse reduces inter-litter intervals

Christophe Féron A B and Patrick Gouat A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A LEEC CNRS UMR 7153, Université Paris 13, F-93430 Villetaneuse, France.

B Corresponding author. Email: christophe.feron@leec.univ-paris13.fr

Reproduction, Fertility and Development 19(3) 425-429 https://doi.org/10.1071/RD06150
Submitted: 31 October 2006  Accepted: 15 December 2006   Published: 14 March 2007

Abstract

In many rodent species males display paternal behaviour. The primary reported effect of this paternal care is to increase pup survival. In mammal females, pregnancy and lactation are energetically demanding, especially when they are concurrent in post-partum reproduction. To face this energy requirement, females generally lengthen the duration of their post-partum pregnancy. In the present study we tested whether paternal care could affect this duration in the monogamous mound building mouse Mus spicilegus. In this species, females have a short reproductive life that does not exceed 4 months. Reduction of inter-delivery latencies would then be an efficient way to increase reproductive success. In a male removal experiment, we showed that inter-delivery latency was shortened by male presence. Moreover, behavioural estimations of paternal involvement were correlated with inter-delivery latency. The longer the male spent inside the nest the shorter the inter-delivery latency. In the mound-building mouse, the female might be able to monopolise the parental care of a single male, which could be important for the evolution of monogamy. The characteristics of first reproduction as compared to post-partum reproduction suggest that it may contribute to the formation of a strong and exclusive social bond between the reproductive partners.

Additional keywords: frequency of reproduction, monogamy, Mus spicilegus.


References

Asdell S. (1964). ‘Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction.’ (Cornell University Press: New York.)

Bateman, N. (1957). Some physiological aspects of lactation in mice. J. Agric. Sci. 49, 60–77.
Brown R. E. (1985). The rodent I: effects of odours on reproductive physiology (primer effects). In ‘Social Odours in Mammals. Vol. 1’. (Eds R. E. Brown and D. W. MacDonald.) pp. 245–344. (Oxford University Press: New York.)

Carter, C. S. , DeVries, A. C. , and Getz, L. L. (1995). Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: the prairie vole model. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 19, 303–314.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Eisenberg J. F. (1981). ‘The Mammalian Radiation. An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation, and Behaviour.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago.)

Elwood R. W. (1983). Paternal care in rodents. In ‘Parental Behaviour in Rodents’. (Ed. R. W. Elwood.) pp. 235–257. (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Féron, C. , and Gheusi, G. (2003). Social regulation of reproduction in the female mound-builder mouse (Mus spicilegus). Physiol. Behav. 78, 717–722.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Kleiman D. G., and Malcolm J. R. (1981). The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In ‘Parental Care in Mammals’. (Eds D. Gubernick and P. Klopfer.) pp. 347–387. (Plenum Press: New York.)

König, B. (1994). Components of lifetime reproductive success in communally and solitarily nursing house mice: a laboratory study. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34, 275–283.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Trivers R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In ‘Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man’. (Ed. B. Campbell.) pp. 136–179. (Aldine: Chicago, IL.)

Wang, Z. , and Aragona, B. J. (2004). Neurochemical regulation of pair bonding in male prairie voles. Physiol. Behav. 83, 319–328.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Whittingham D. G., and Wood M. J. (1983). Reproductive physiology. In ‘The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Vol. 3’. (Eds H. L. Foster, J. D. Small and J. G. Fox.) pp. 137–164. (Academic Press: London.)

Williams, J. R. , Catania, K. C. , and Carter, C. S. (1992). Development of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): the role of social and sexual experience. Horm. Behav. 26, 339–349.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

Winslow, J. T. , Hastings, N. , Carter, C. S. , Harbaugh, C. R. , and Insel, T. R. (1993). A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. Nature 365, 545–548.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

Wittenberger, J. F. , and Tilson, R. L. (1980). The evolution of monogamy: hypothesis and evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11, 197–232.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (1987). Evidence for obligate monogamy in the Djungarian hamster, Phodopus campbelli: pup survival under different parenting conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20, 427–437.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |