| Literature DB >> 19549147 |
Esa Koskela1, Tapio Mappes, Tuuli Niskanen, Joanna Rutkowska.
Abstract
1. Optimal parental sex allocation depends on the balance between the costs of investing into sons vs. daughters and the benefits calculated as fitness returns. The outcome of this equation varies with the life history of the species, as well as the state of the individual and the quality of the environment. 2. We studied maternal allocation and subsequent fecundity costs of bank voles, Myodes glareolus, by manipulating both the postnatal sex ratio (all-male/all-female litters) and the quality of rearing environment (through manipulation of litter size by -2/+2 pups) of their offspring in a laboratory setting. 3. We found that mothers clearly biased their allocation to female rather than male offspring regardless of their own body condition. Male pups had a significantly lower growth rate than female pups, so that at weaning, males from enlarged litters were the smallest. Mothers produced more milk for female litters and also defended them more intensively than male offspring. 4. The results agree with the predictions based on the bank vole life history: there will be selection for greater investment in daughters rather than sons, as a larger size seems to be more influencial for female reproductive success in this species. Our finding could be a general rule in highly polygynous, but weakly dimorphic small mammals where females are territorial. 5. The results disagree with the narrow sense Trivers & Willard hypothesis, which states that in polygynous mammals that show higher variation in male than in female reproductive success, high-quality mothers are expected to invest more in sons than in daughters.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19549147 PMCID: PMC2779470 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01574.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Ecol ISSN: 0021-8790 Impact factor: 5.091
Generalized linear mixed model on size of offspring at weaning age in different treatment groups
| Estimate ± SE | d.f. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0·772 ± 0·037 | |||
| Litter size | 0·082 ± 0·018 | 1, 45·9 | 27·72 | <0·0001 |
| Litter sex | 0·042 ± 0·017 | 1, 45·9 | 4·03 | 0·050 |
| Litter size × litter sex | −0·034 ± 0·025 | 1, 45·8 | 1·85 | 0·180 |
| Weight at birth | 0·523 ± 0·077 | 1, 217 | 46·07 | <0·0001 |
Mother identity was included in the model as a random factor (estimate ± SE: 1·624 × 10−3 ± 0·407 × 10−3, Z = 3·99, P < 0·0001), weight at birth as a covariate. Satterthwaite approximation for the denominator degrees of freedom used.
If the non-significant interaction term is removed from the model, Litter sex manipulation P = 0·039.
Fig. 1Offspring growth [weight change (g) from birth until weaning, mean ± SE] was significantly faster in reduced litters than enlarged litters and in daughters than sons.
Two-way anova and generalized linear mixed model for milk production of mothers in different treatment groups
| Estimate ± SE | d.f. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total milk production | ||||
| Intercept | 0·978 ± 0·033 | |||
| Litter size | −0·091 ± 0·046 | 1, 67 | 13·515 | <0·001 |
| Litter sex | 0·114 ± 0·045 | 1, 67 | 6·307 | 0·014 |
| Litter size × litter sex | −0·060 ± 0·064 | 1, 67 | 0·875 | 0·353 |
| Mother condition | 0·052 ± 0·016 | 1, 67 | 9·124 | 0·004 |
| Milk per pup | ||||
| Intercept | 0·753 ± 0·008 | |||
| Litter size | 0·020 ± 0·011 | 1, 62·7 | 4·34 | 0·041 |
| Litter sex | 0·021 ± 0·010 | 1, 63·3 | 4·95 | 0·030 |
| Litter size × litter sex | −0·008 ± 0·016 | 1, 63·1 | 0·24 | 0·627 |
| Mother condition | 0·006 ± 0·004 | 1, 59·1 | 2·11 | 0·151 |
Satterthwaite approximation for the denominator degrees of freedom used.
Mother identity was included in the model as a random factor (estimate ± SE: 0·85 × 10−3 ± 0·19 × 10−3, Z = 4·52, P < 0·0001).
Fig. 2(a) Mothers produced significantly more milk (in grams, mean ± SE) for female litters and for enlarged litters. (b) An average female pup received more milk (in grams, mean ± SE) than a male pup and in enlarged litters, a pup received less milk than in reduced litters.
Two-way anova of offspring defence of mothers in different treatment groups
| Estimate ± SE | d.f. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total defence time | ||||
| Intercept | 4·317 ± 0·852 | |||
| Litter size | 2·710 ± 1·154 | 1, 41 | 0·61 | 0·441 |
| Litter sex | 2·612 ± 1·154 | 1, 41 | 0·43 | 0·515 |
| Litter size × litter sex | −4·166 ± 1·612 | 1, 41 | 6·68 | 0·013 |
| Aggressive behaviour | ||||
| Intercept | −0·630 ± 0·307 | |||
| Litter size | 0·780 ± 0·416 | 1, 41 | 1·15 | 0·289 |
| Litter sex | 0·900 ± 0·416 | 1, 41 | 2·22 | 0·144 |
| Litter size × litter sex | −0·935 ± 0·581 | 1, 41 | 2·59 | 0·115 |
Fig. 3(a) Total defence time (in seconds, mean ± SE) of the mothers did not differ significantly between male and female offspring in reduced litters whereas mothers defended daughters more actively than sons in enlarged litters. (b) Aggressive behaviour of mothers (PCA component, mean ± SE) did not reach a statistically significant difference between the treatments.