Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Female nursing partner choice in a population of wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus)


Harrison, Nicola; Lindholm, Anna K; Dobay, Akos; Halloran, Olivia; Manser, Andri; König, Barbara (2018). Female nursing partner choice in a population of wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Frontiers in Zoology, 15:4.

Abstract

Background Communal nursing in house mice is an example of cooperation where females pool litters in the same nest and indiscriminately nurse own and other offspring despite potential exploitation. The direct fitness benefits associated with communal nursing shown in laboratory studies suggest it to be a selected component of female house mice reproductive behaviour. However, past studies on communal nursing in free-living populations have debated whether it is a consequence of sharing the same nest or an active choice. Here using data from a long-term study of free-living, wild house mice we investigated individual nursing decisions and determined what factors influenced a female’s decision to nurse communally.
Results Females chose to nurse solitarily more often than expected by chance, but the likelihood of nursing solitarily decreased when females had more partners available. While finding no influence of pairwise relatedness on partner choice, we observed that females shared their social environment with genetically similar individuals, suggesting a female’s home area consisted of related females, possibly facilitating the evolution of cooperation. Within such a home area females were more likely to nest communally when the general relatedness of her available options was relatively high. Females formed communal nests with females that were familiar through previous associations and had young pups of usually less than 5 days old.
Conclusions Our findings suggest that communal nursing was not a by-product of sharing the same nesting sites, but females choose communal nursing partners from a group of genetically similar females, and ultimately the decision may then depend on the pool of options available. Social partner choice proved to be an integrated part of cooperation among females, and might allow females to reduce the conflict over number of offspring in a communal nest and milk investment towards own and other offspring. We suggest that social partner choice may be a general mechanism to stabilize costly cooperation.

Abstract

Background Communal nursing in house mice is an example of cooperation where females pool litters in the same nest and indiscriminately nurse own and other offspring despite potential exploitation. The direct fitness benefits associated with communal nursing shown in laboratory studies suggest it to be a selected component of female house mice reproductive behaviour. However, past studies on communal nursing in free-living populations have debated whether it is a consequence of sharing the same nest or an active choice. Here using data from a long-term study of free-living, wild house mice we investigated individual nursing decisions and determined what factors influenced a female’s decision to nurse communally.
Results Females chose to nurse solitarily more often than expected by chance, but the likelihood of nursing solitarily decreased when females had more partners available. While finding no influence of pairwise relatedness on partner choice, we observed that females shared their social environment with genetically similar individuals, suggesting a female’s home area consisted of related females, possibly facilitating the evolution of cooperation. Within such a home area females were more likely to nest communally when the general relatedness of her available options was relatively high. Females formed communal nests with females that were familiar through previous associations and had young pups of usually less than 5 days old.
Conclusions Our findings suggest that communal nursing was not a by-product of sharing the same nesting sites, but females choose communal nursing partners from a group of genetically similar females, and ultimately the decision may then depend on the pool of options available. Social partner choice proved to be an integrated part of cooperation among females, and might allow females to reduce the conflict over number of offspring in a communal nest and milk investment towards own and other offspring. We suggest that social partner choice may be a general mechanism to stabilize costly cooperation.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

9 downloads since deposited on 22 Nov 2018
9 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
590 Animals (Zoology)
Language:English
Date:1 December 2018
Deposited On:22 Nov 2018 13:26
Last Modified:24 Sep 2019 23:51
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1742-9994
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-018-0251-3
PubMed ID:29467798
Project Information:
  • : FunderSNSF
  • : Grant ID31003A-120444
  • : Project TitleMaternal selection in a population of wild house mice
  • : FunderPromotor Foundation
  • : Grant ID
  • : Project TitleDo wild mice behave like cuckoos?
  • : FunderClaraz Stiftung
  • : Grant ID
  • : Project TitleDoes the MHC influence partner preference in wild mice?
  • : FunderStiftung für wissenschaftliche Forschung an der Universität Zürich
  • : Grant ID
  • : Project TitleQuantitative genetics of communal nursing in wild house mice
  • : FunderWolfermann-Nägeli-Stiftung
  • : Grant ID
  • : Project Title
  • : FunderJulius-Klaus Stiftung
  • : Grant ID
  • : Project TitleHeritability of cooperation

Download

Download PDF  'Female nursing partner choice in a population of wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus)'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 840kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Public Domain Dedication: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)