Does mating prevent monogamous males from seeking other females? A study in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster)

Rodriguez, Natalia A.; Legzim, Karine M.; Aliou, Fayeza; Al-Naimi, Omar Ali S.; Bamshad, Maryam

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.002

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, bonded males investigate sexually receptive females more than they investigate their mates (Parker et al 2011; Rodriguez et al 2013). Moreover, we know that some proportion of males and females engage in extrapair mating (Ophir et al 2008a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A preference to bond? Male prairie voles form pair bonds even in the presence of multiple receptive females

Blocker

Ophir

2016

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pair bonds are the cornerstone of a monogamous relationship. When individuals of the same species engage in monogamy and promiscuity (i.e. alternative reproductive tactics) it can be difficult to determine which tactic confers greater fitness, as measures of fitness can be difficult to ascertain. However, in these circumstances, whether animals preferentially establish pair bonds can reveal decisions that presumably reflect the animals’ assessment of how to best maximize reproductive success. In nature, the majority of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, establishes pair bonds and engages in social monogamy while a minority of individuals remains single and presumably mates promiscuously. The existence of these two tactics raises the interesting question: do bonded male prairie voles choose to ‘settle’ (for just one partner) or are they preferentially ‘settling down’? To determine which of these two tactics is preferred, we provided single male prairie voles simultaneous access to two sexually receptive females for 24 h and then subsequently tested males in ‘partner preference tests’ with each female independently contrasted with a novel female. We aimed to determine whether males would form a pair bond with one, both or none of the original females. We found that males formed pair bonds with one of the two females. We also investigated male- and female-initiated aggression and found that during the bonding process males were more aggressive with females that they did not ultimately form a bond with. In the partner preference tests, males showed more aggression towards unfamiliar females than towards familiar females. Mismatches in male- and female-initiated aggression suggest that aggressive interactions may be perpetuated more by males than by females. Taken together, our results demonstrate that under conditions that are ideal for forgoing bonding and engaging in multiple matings, males choose to establish a pair bond, suggesting that selective pressures may have facilitated bonding by males.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A preference to bond? Male prairie voles form pair bonds even in the presence of multiple receptive females

Blocker

Ophir

2016

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, both adult male and female wild marmosets engage in extra-group sociosexual behavior during the course of intergroup encounters (Digby, 1999; Lazaro-Perea, 2001; Nievergelt et al, 2000); and socially-bonded adult tamarins and marmosets participate in high rates of opportunistic social and sexual interactions with opposite-sex strangers when the established partner is absent, and social indifference or aggression toward the opposite-sex stranger when the partner is present (Inglett et al, 1990; Ross and French, 2011). In this fashion, the nature of social monogamy in callitrichine primates may more closely resemble the opportunistic strategies associated with partner fidelity in both female (Gangestad et al, 2010) and male (Buss, 2013) humans, and less like the nature of pair relationships in prairie voles, which are characterized by high social selectivity for partners (Rodriguez et al, 2013). Accordingly, the fundamental social processes underlying the behavioral regulation of monogamy (such as prosociality), may be differentially modified by neuroendocrine systems in socially or species-specific way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do marmosets care to share? Oxytocin treatment reduces prosocial behavior toward strangers

Mustoe

Cavanaugh

Harnisch

et al. 2015

Hormones and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperatively-breeding and socially-monogamous primates, like marmosets and humans, exhibit high levels of social tolerance and prosociality toward others. Oxytocin (OXT) generally facilitates prosocial behavior, but there is growing recognition that OXT modulation of prosocial behavior is shaped by the context of social interactions and by other motivational states such as arousal or anxiety. To determine whether prosociality varies based on social context, we evaluated whether marmoset donors (Callithrix penicillata) preferentially rewarded pairmates versus opposite-sex strangers in a prosocial food-sharing task. To examine potential links among OXT, stress systems, and prosociality, we evaluated whether pretrial cortisol levels in marmosets altered the impact of OXT on prosocial responses. Marmosets exhibited spontaneous prosociality toward others, but they did so preferentially toward strangers compared to their pairmates. When donor marmosets were treated with marmoset-specific Pro8-OXT, they exhibited reduced prosociality toward strangers compared to marmosets treated with saline or consensus-mammalian Leu8-OXT. When pretrial cortisol levels were lower, marmosets exhibited higher prosociality toward strangers. These findings demonstrate that while marmosets show spontaneous prosocial responses toward others, they do so preferentially toward opposite-sex strangers. Cooperative breeding may be associated with the expression of prosociality, but the existence of a pair-bond between marmoset partners appears to be neither necessary nor sufficient for the expression of spontaneous prosocial responses. Further, high prosociality toward strangers is significantly reduced in marmosets treated with Pro8-OXT, suggesting that OXT does not universally enhance prosociality, but, rather OXT modulation of prosocial behavior varies depending on social context.

show abstract

“…It is possible that 72 h of cohabitation was not sufficient time for the males to form a memory of their partner’s spatial location. Additionally, we found that males that mated and cohabited with their partner for 72 h were more likely to shift their attention to another female or her odor when that female was sexually receptive, but not when that female was sexually unreceptive ( Rodriguez et al 2013 ). However, the male in our previous studies had mated and cohabited with his partner for 72 h. Although this time period is long enough for bond formation, it is not sufficient for bond maintenance ( Aragona et al 2006 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Physical separation from the mate diminishes male’s attentiveness towards other females: a study in monogamous prairie volesMicrotus ochrogaster

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested whether continuous cohabitation in monogamous voles affects the mated male’s attentiveness to his breeding partner versus another female. Each male was housed in a 3-chamber apparatus with a Focal female (FF) and a Control female (CF) for 13 days then placed in a T-maze to assess his attentiveness to and memory of those females. The Distal male remained physically separated from both females, but received their distal cues. The Separate male cohabited with the FF for 3 days then remained physically separated from both females. The Disrupt male’s continuous cohabitation with the FF was disrupted by having him physically separated from her after 10 days and placed with the CF for the last 3 days. The Continuous male cohabited continuously with the FF for 13 days. With females in the T-maze, the Separate and Disrupt males spent more time near the FF’s box and the Disrupt males spent more time manipulating the FF’s box than the CF’s box. The Separate males groomed themselves more when near the FF’s box than the CF’s box. The Distal and Continuous males’ attentiveness to the two females did not differ. Results suggest that physical distance from the partner may reduce male’s attentiveness toward other potential mates. Prairie voles might be similar to socially monogamous primates in using tactile cues as a signal for maintaining their social bonds.

show abstract

Does mating prevent monogamous males from seeking other females? A study in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster)

Cited by 6 publications

References 54 publications

A preference to bond? Male prairie voles form pair bonds even in the presence of multiple receptive females

A preference to bond? Male prairie voles form pair bonds even in the presence of multiple receptive females

Do marmosets care to share? Oxytocin treatment reduces prosocial behavior toward strangers

Physical separation from the mate diminishes male’s attentiveness towards other females: a study in monogamous prairie volesMicrotus ochrogaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About