Male immigration triggers increased growth in subordinate female meerkats

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that some vertebrates can adjust their growth rate in relation to changes in the social context that affect their probability of breeding. Here, we show that, in meerkats (Suricata suricatta), which are singular cooperative breeders, subordinate females increase in body mass after their father is replaced as the dominant male in their natal group by an immigrant male, giving them regular access to an unfamiliar and unrelated mating partner, while their brothers showed no similar increase nor did subordinate females living in other stable groups (where male immigration did not occur did) in this time period. Moreover, subordinate females showed a greater increase in growth rate when their father was succeeded by an unfamiliar immigrant male than when he was replaced by a familiar male who was already resident. These results suggest that female meerkats can adjust their rate of growth to changes in the kinship composition of their groups that provide them with increased access to unrelated breeding partners, which may occur in other mammals as well when breeding opportunities change.

Social-Economic-Political-Emotional (SEPE) factors regulate human growth

“…The psychologicalemotional phenotype of the parents with high prestige is culturally transmitted to their offspring and interacts with offspring physiology to reduce negative stress and its growth inhibiting hormones, and to stimulate production of growth-promoting hormones. This parental-status-to-offspringgrowth pathway is a well-tested hypothesis that has been empirically documented in several non-human species, such as baboons (Sapolsky and Spencer 1997), mandrills (Setchell 2016), orangutans (Maggioncalda et al 2002;Maggioncalda et al 2000;Emery Thompson et al 2012), mole rats (Young and Bennett 2010), meerkats (Huchard et al 2016;Dubuc and Clutton-Brock 2019;Russell et al 2004), and other species (Clutton-Brock 2016).The human difference is culture, especially the ideological justifications for the dominance of wealthy elites to maintain their social position and their taller height. These ideological justifications are today enshrined in the hereditary aristocracies, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary monarchies, taxation laws, and other forms of antiegalitarian status differentials practiced in many of the wealthier North American, European, and Asian nations.…”

Stress, Subordination, and Anomalies of Feeding Across the Tree of Life: Implications for Interpreting Human Eating Disorders

“…Such growth suppression of smaller, low-ranking animals has been observed in numerous other fish ( Koebele, 1985 ; Clifton, 1990 ; Hofmann et al, 1999 ; Maclean and Metcalfe, 2001 ; Munday et al, 2006 ; Cruz et al, 2007 ; Filby et al, 2010 ; Woog et al, 2012 ; Obirikorang et al, 2020 ), birds ( Vahl et al, 2005 ; Partida et al, 2007 ), mammals ( Barroso et al, 2000 ; Tamashiro et al, 2005 ; Dengler-Crish and Catania, 2007 ; Young and Bennett, 2010 ; Wang et al, 2013 ; Dubuc and Clutton-Brock, 2019 ; Carneiro-Nascimento et al, 2020 ), and also primates ( Wittig and Boesch, 2003 ). Numerous mechanisms have been suggested or observed to contribute to this phenomenon: monopoly of food resources and intimidation by dominants ( Jobling and Wandsvik, 1983 ; Maclean and Metcalfe, 2001 ; Cruz et al, 2007 ); hormonal changes affecting appetite, growth rate, digestive tract function, and metabolic rate ( Jobling and Wandsvik, 1983 ; Sloman et al, 2000 , 2005 ; Filby et al, 2010 ); and changes in activity level and foraging behaviors ( Earley et al, 2004 ).…”

“…Social position within hierarchies is a source of stress for mammals, birds, and fish living within them ( Hobson et al, 2021 ). Position in hierarchy generally shapes an individual’s access to food, with higher ranking individuals controlling and consuming critical resources, and subordinates facing an increased risk of starvation and death ( Vahl et al, 2005 ; Cruz et al, 2007 ; Lee et al, 2018 ; Dubuc and Clutton-Brock, 2019 ). This reality reinforces the fitness-reducing impact of subordinate status within animal groups and underscores the necessity of patterned eating behaviors to respond to these challenges.…”

“…Subordinate animals, whether due to food insecurity or other stressors associated with their position, exhibit different patterns of eating than dominants. As shown in Figure 1 , subordinates across a phylogenetically wide range of species respond with several patterned responses to these challenges through behavioral adaptations in their eating: Both hyperphagic ( Witter and Cuthill, 1993 ; Witter and Swaddle, 1995 ; Pravosudov et al, 1999 ; Bartolomucci et al, 2004 ; Foster et al, 2006 ; Michopoulos et al, 2012 ) and hypophagic ( Purdom, 1974 ; Jobling and Wandsvik, 1983 ; Koebele, 1985 ; Clifton, 1990 ; Barroso et al, 2000 ; Sloman et al, 2000 ; Maclean and Metcalfe, 2001 ; Wittig and Boesch, 2003 ; Earley et al, 2004 ; Sloman et al, 2005 ; Tamashiro et al, 2005 ; Vahl et al, 2005 ; Munday et al, 2006 ; Cruz et al, 2007 ; Dengler-Crish and Catania, 2007 ; Partida et al, 2007 ; Filby et al, 2010 ; Young and Bennett, 2010 ; Woog et al, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2013 ; Dubuc and Clutton-Brock, 2019 ; Carneiro-Nascimento et al, 2020 ; Obirikorang et al, 2020 ) responses to social subordination have been observed in mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. While the number of species in which these responses have been studied is not large, the phylogenetic diversity of species in which these eating responses have been recorded, coupled with a conserved neurophysiology, argues for an ancient linkage between behavioral responses to social subordination in humans and other animals.…”

“…A phylogeny of the potential naturally occurring animal models for hyperphagic and hypophagic responses to social stress. References: Hypophagia - Self Imposed ( Abbott and Dill, 1989 ; Ekman and Hake, 1990 ; Hiebert, 1991 ; Gosler et al, 1995 ; Buston, 2003 ; Heg et al, 2004 ; Ball and Crawford, 2005 ; Sloman et al, 2005 ; Munday et al, 2006 ; Wilson et al, 2008 ; Wong et al, 2008 ; Moore et al, 2013 ); Hypophagia ( Purdom, 1974 ; Jobling and Wandsvik, 1983 ; Clifton, 1990 ; Owen, 1990 ; Ekman and Lilliendahl, 1993 ; Webb, 1993 ; Hofmann et al, 1999 ; Barroso et al, 2000 ; Maclean and Metcalfe, 2001 ; Wittig and Boesch, 2003 ; Bartolomucci et al, 2004 ; Ball and Crawford, 2005 ; Vahl et al, 2005 ; Dengler-Crish and Catania, 2007 ; Partida et al, 2007 ; Wilson et al, 2008 ; Choi and Kim, 2010 ; Filby et al, 2010 ; Young and Bennett, 2010 ; Michopoulos et al, 2012 ; Woog et al, 2012 ; Moore et al, 2013 ; Wang et al, 2013 ; Treasure et al, 2015 ; Dubuc and Clutton-Brock, 2019 ; Schalla and Stengel, 2019 ; Carneiro-Nascimento et al, 2020 ; Obirikorang et al, 2020 ); Hyperphagia ( Witter and Swaddle, 1995 ; Pravosudov et al, 1999 ; Bartolomucci et al, 2004 ; Ball and Crawford, 2005 ; Foster et al, 2006 ; Razzoli et al, 2015 ; Brownley et al, 2016 ; Carneiro-Nascimento et al, 2020 ).…”