Risk of inbreeding: problem of mate choice and fitness effects?
äºIsrael Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Hannu YlÓ§nen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marko Haapakoski in
Current site
Google Scholar
Mating with close kin may cause inbreeding depression with negative consequences to offspring and local populations. There exist mechanisms like kin-recognition or sex-specific dispersal to avoid mating with kin. In fluctuating population densities, like in many small mammals, both very low and very high densities provide conditions for inbreeding, if kin males are prone to stay in their natal area. Females are choosy and male dominance is thought to be the key feature when selecting mating partners. The aim of this study was to test the possible discrepancy in mate choice and negative fitness effects of inbreeding in two experiments, one in the laboratory and one in field enclosures. We asked (1) how the quality of the potential mating partners affects female choice regardless of relatedness and (2) how inbreeding affects the field populations created either from inbred or outbred individuals. Our results show that primiparous females in post-partum oestrus mated preferably with a dominant male, measured with their urine-marking behaviour, regardless if the selected male was brother or not. Only if the two males offered were of same dominance rank, the female mated with the non-kin male. However, the field experiment verified a negative effect of inbreeding in the bank vole. Thus, there seems to be a mismatch between female mate choice when selecting for dominance among resident males and population viability through long-term inbreeding depression. The study suggests the high importance of sex-biased dispersal as a mechanism to avoid kin individuals to meet in mate choice situations.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aars J, , Ims RA. 2002. Intrinsic and climatic determinants of population demography: the winter dynamics of tundra voles. Ecology. 83:3449â3456.
-
Bujalska G.1973. The role of spacing behaviour among females in the regulation of reproduction in the bank vole. J Reprod Fert 19:465â474.
-
Crawley MJ.2007. The R book. New York: John Wiley.
-
Crnokrak P, , Roff DA. 1999. Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity. 83:260â270.
-
Davis MB, , Shaw RG. 2001. Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change. Science. 292:673â679.
-
DelBarco-Trillo J, , Ferkin MH. 2007. Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, experience a reduction in copulatory behavior during postpartum estrus. Ethology. 113:466â473.
-
Dobson FS, , Chesser K, , Hoogland JL, , Sugg DW, , Foltz DW. 1997. Do black-tailed prairie dogs minimize inbreeding? Evolution. 51:970â978.
-
Dobson FS, , Jones WT. 1985. Multiple causes of dispersal. Am Nat. 126:855â858.
-
Ferkin MH, , Rutka TF. 1989. Mechanisms of sibling recognition in meadow voles. Can J Zool. 68:609â613.
-
Gerlach G, , Musolf K. 2000. Fragmentation of landscape as a cause for genetic subdivision in bank voles. Conserv Biol. 14:1066â1074.
-
Gosling LM, , Roberts SC. 2001. Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Stud Behav. 30:169â217.
-
Greenwood PJ, , Harvey PH. 1982. The natal and breeding dispersal of birds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 13:1â21.
-
Gros A, , Poethke HJ, , Hoevestadt T. 2009. Sex-specific spatio-temporal variability in reproductive success promotes the evolution of sex-biased dispersal. Theor Popul Biol. 76:13â18.
-
Hanski I, , Henttonen H. 1996. Predation on competing rodent species: a simple explanation of complex patterns. J Anim Ecol. 65:220â232.
-
Hestbeck JB.1982. Population regulation of cyclic mammals: the social fence hypothesis. Oikos. 39:157â163.
-
Horne TJ, , Ylönen H. 1996. Female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) prefer dominant males; but what if there is no choice? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:401â405.
-
Horne TJ, , Ylönen H. 1998. Heritabilities of dominance-related traits in male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Evolution. 52:894â899.
-
Jimenez JA, , Hughes KA, , Alaks G, , Graham L, , Lacy RC. 1994. An experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat. Science. 266:271â273.
-
Keller LF, , Arcese P. 1998. No evidence for inbreeding avoidance in a natural population on song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Am Nat. 152:380â392.
-
Klemme I, , Eccard JA, , Ylönen H. 2006. Why do female bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus, mate multiply? Anim Behav. 73:623â628.
-
Klemme I, , Kataja-Aho S, , Eccard JA, , Ylönen H. 2012. Variable mode of estrus affects female decision for multiple mating. Behav Ecol. 23:361â367.
-
Krebs CJ.2013. Population fluctuations in rodents. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 306 p.
-
Kruczek M.2006. Recognition of kin in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Physiol Behav. 90:483â489.
-
Lambin X.1994. Natal philopatry, competition for resources, and inbreeding avoidance in Townsend´s voles (Microtus townsendii). Ecology. 75:224â235.
-
Mateo MJ, , Johnston RE. 2000. Kin recognition and the âarmpit effectâ: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B. 267:695â700.
-
O'Grady JJ, , Brook BW, , Reed DH, , Ballou JD, , Tonkyn DW, , Frankham R. 2006. Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biol Conserv. 133:42â51.
-
Penn D, , Potts W. 1998. How do major histocompatibility complex genes influence odor and mating preferences? Adv Immunol. 69:411â436.
-
Pinheiro J, , Bates D, , DebRoy S, , Sarkar D. 2010. The R Core team (2009) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-96. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
-
Pokki J.1982. Distribution, demography and dispersal of field vole, Microtus agrestis (L.), in the Tvärminne archipelago, Finland. Acta Zool Fenn. 164:1â48.
-
Pusey A, , Wolf M. 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:201â206.
-
R Development Core Team. 2010: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/.
-
Rikalainen K.2013. Genetic diversity in the wild â cyclic population dynamics and population isolation [PhD thesis]. Vol. 258. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Studies in Biological and Environmental Science.
-
Rozenfeld FM, , Rasmont R. 1991. Odor cue recognition by dominant male bank voles, Clethrionomus glareolus. Anim Behav. 41:838â850.
-
Sillero-Zubiri C, , Gottelli D, , Macdonald DW. 1996. Male philopatry, extra-pack copulations and inbreeding avoidance in Ethiopian volves (Canis simensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:331â340.
-
Wolff JO.1992. Parents suppress reproduction and stimulate dispersal in opposite-sex juvenile white-footed mice. Nature. 359:409â410.
-
Wolff JO, , Plissner JH. 1998. Sex biases in avian natal dispersal: an extension of the mammalian model. Oikos. 83:327â330.
-
Viitala J, , Hakkarainen H, , Ylönen H. 1994. Different dispersal in Clethrionomys and Microtus. Ann Zool Fenn. 31:411â415.
-
Xue Y, , Prado-Martinez J, , Sudmant P, , Narasimhan V, , Ayub Q, , Szpak M, , Frandsen P, , Chen Y, , Yngvadottir B, , Cooper DN, et al.. 2015. Mountain gorilla genomes reveal the impact of long-term population decline and inbreeding. Science. 348:242â245.
-
Ylönen H, , Kojola T, , Viitala J. 1988. Changing female spacing behaviour and demography in an enclosed breeding population of Clethrionomys glareolus. Holarctic Ecol. 11:286â292.
-
Ylönen H, , Pusenius J, , Viitala J. 1995. Impact of kinship and familiarity on the annual social organization and population dynamics of Clethrionomys and Microtus voles. Ann Zool Fenn. 32:225â232.
-
Ylönen H, , Viitala J. 1987. Social organization and habitat use of introduced populations of the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus (Sund) in Central Finland. Z Säugetierkd. 52:354â363.
-
Ylönen H, , Wolff JO. 1999. Experiments in the behavioural ecology and the real world. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:82.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 403 | 111 | 27 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 39 | 11 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 57 | 24 | 0 |
Risk of inbreeding: problem of mate choice and fitness effects?
äºIsrael Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Hannu YlÓ§nen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marko Haapakoski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Mating with close kin may cause inbreeding depression with negative consequences to offspring and local populations. There exist mechanisms like kin-recognition or sex-specific dispersal to avoid mating with kin. In fluctuating population densities, like in many small mammals, both very low and very high densities provide conditions for inbreeding, if kin males are prone to stay in their natal area. Females are choosy and male dominance is thought to be the key feature when selecting mating partners. The aim of this study was to test the possible discrepancy in mate choice and negative fitness effects of inbreeding in two experiments, one in the laboratory and one in field enclosures. We asked (1) how the quality of the potential mating partners affects female choice regardless of relatedness and (2) how inbreeding affects the field populations created either from inbred or outbred individuals. Our results show that primiparous females in post-partum oestrus mated preferably with a dominant male, measured with their urine-marking behaviour, regardless if the selected male was brother or not. Only if the two males offered were of same dominance rank, the female mated with the non-kin male. However, the field experiment verified a negative effect of inbreeding in the bank vole. Thus, there seems to be a mismatch between female mate choice when selecting for dominance among resident males and population viability through long-term inbreeding depression. The study suggests the high importance of sex-biased dispersal as a mechanism to avoid kin individuals to meet in mate choice situations.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 403 | 111 | 27 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 39 | 11 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 57 | 24 | 0 |
