| Literature DB >> 27922127 |
Jan Šklíba1,2, Matěj Lövy1, Hynek Burda3, Radim Šumbera1.
Abstract
Eusocial species of African mole-rats live in groups cooperating on multiple tasks and employing division of labour. In captivity, individuals of the same group differ in cooperative contribution as well as in preference for a particular task. Both can be viewed as polyethism. However, little information is available from free-ranging mole-rats, which live in large burrow systems. We made an attempt to detect polyethism in the free-living Ansell's mole-rat (Fukomys anselli) as differences in individuals' space-use patterns. We radio-tracked 17 adults from five groups. Large individuals, including breeding males, spent more time inside the nest than smaller individuals. Breeding females were more often located <10 m from the nest in comparison to non-breeding females, who were relatively more often located 30-90 m and exclusively >90 m from the nest. One non-breeding female even conducted a brief intrusion into a neighbouring group's territory via an open tunnel connection. A significant part of the variability in mole-rat space-use patterns was explained by body mass which is probably related to age in this species. This result can therefore be attributed to age polyethism. There was no apparent discontinuity in the space-use patterns of non-breeders that would indicate existence of castes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27922127 PMCID: PMC5138616 DOI: 10.1038/srep37497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Selected characteristics of studied mole-rats and their affiliation to groups.
| Group | Animal code | Sex and rep. status | Body mass (g) | Group size | Individual HR size - MPC (m2) | Whole group HR size - MPC (m2) | Burrow system MCP (m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P01 | M + 038 | Breeding M | 86 | 10 | 632 | 960 | 5827 |
| F + 217 | Breeding F | 69 | 535 | ||||
| M150 | M | 84 | 156 | ||||
| M203 | M | 57 | 729 | ||||
| P02 | M + 967 | Breeding M | 90 | 5 | 1105 | 2109 | 2828 |
| F138 | F | 56 | 2095 | ||||
| P04 | F485 | F | 83 | 13 | 5373 | 6070 | 8776 |
| F465 | F | 68 | 5708 | ||||
| F027 | F | 64 | 5446 | ||||
| P05 | F + 532 | Breeding F | 54 | >7 | 2827 | 6565 | 19103 |
| F419 | F | 57 | 6184 | ||||
| F443 | F | 49 | 5330 | ||||
| P10 | M + 062 | Breeding M | 87 | 9 | 1976 | 6832 | 11393 |
| M092 | M | 58 | 2354 | ||||
| M352 | M | 47 | 6604 | ||||
| F015 | F | 62 | 3450 | ||||
| F568 | F | 56 | 3498 |
aGroup sizes and areas of minimum convex polygons (MPC) covering burrow systems are adopted from Šklíba et al.22. Individual radio-tracked only during the first radio-tracking session.
bTwo radio-fixes within a neighbouring mole-rat family group’s territory were dropped before HR size calculation.
Mean ± SD percentage of radio-fixes located in various distance ranges from the nest for breeding and non-breeding male and female Ansell’s mole-rats.
| Category | Radio-tracking session | n | 0 (Nest) | <10 m | 10–30 m | 30–90 m | >90 m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breeding M | 1 | 3 | 78.1 ± 9.1 | 11.5 ± 7.3 | 3.1 ± 1.0 | 7.3 ± 6.3 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| 2 | 2 | 78.1 ± 2.9 | 2.6 ± 2.9 | 3.1 ± 2.9 | 16.1 ± 5.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Breeding F | 1 | 2 | 71.9 ± 2.9 | 17.7 ± 5.9 | 5.2 ± 2.9 | 5.2 ± 5.9 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| 2 | 1 | 71.9 | 7.3 | 8.3 | 12.5 | 0.0 | |
| Non-breeding M | 1 | 4 | 71.1 ± 6.6 | 9.9 ± 9.3 | 10.4 ± 7.3 | 8.6 ± 6.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| 2 | 3 | 65.6 ± 7.3 | 3.1 ± 1.8 | 22.6 ± 6.4 | 8.7 ± 3.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Non-breding F | 1 | 8 | 69.5 ± 3.8 | 7.9 ± 3.9 | 7.6 ± 4.5 | 14.5 ± 5.4 | 0.5 ± 0.8 |
| 2 | 7 | 66.4 ± 4.1 | 7.3 ± 3.5 | 10.0 ± 4.3 | 15.0 ± 7.7 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | |
| All | 1 | 17 | 71.7 ± 6.0 | 10.2 ± 6.4 | 7.2 ± 5.1 | 10.7 ± 6.5 | 0.2 ± 0.6 |
| 2 | 13 | 68.4 ± 9.6 | 5.6 ± 2.2 | 11.7 ± 8.8 | 13.5 ± 1.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
Quantification of the effects of three variables on pattern of space use in the Ansell’s mole-rats as revealed by the variance partitioning technique42 using redundancy analysis (RDA).
| Explained variance (%) | % of explained variance | F | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All variables | 78.4 | 100 | 3.6 | 0.001 |
| Partial effect of group affiliation | 30.3 | 38.6 | 2.8 | 0.023 |
| Partial effect of body mass | 12.1 | 15.4 | 4.5 | 0.025 |
| Partial effect of sex*rep. status | 8.5 | 10.8 | 1.1 | 0.43 |
| Shared effect | 27.5 | 35.1 |
Figure 1PCA plot showing individual mole-rats in a multidimensional space defined by relative proportions of radio-fixes at five distance ranges from the nest.
The effect of the affiliation to a group was removed using a covariable. Data from the same individual from the two radio-tracking sessions are treated as independent. Squares represent males, circles represent females, solid symbols mark breeding individuals. Red symbols represent centroids for particular sex and reproductive status (breeding status is marked with “+’’). The centroids plus the body mass arrow represent independent variables passively projected to the diagram.
Figure 2Fixes of radio-collared mole-rats of two family groups (P05 and P10) depicted over a map of their interconnected burrow systems.
One symbol represents one or more radio-fixes. Dotted lines encompass MCP home ranges of the two groups. Arrows show positions of the nests and two subsequent radio-fixes of female F015 of group P10 which are inside the home range of group P05. Grey spot marks a conspicuously high density of food plants (Dolichos sp.).
Summary of the published data on polyethism within family groups of eusocial mole-rats.
| Species | Field/lab, reference | n | Activity of breeders | Activity ~Sex | Activity ~ Body mass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | |||||
| Field | 1 group, 5 ind. | Low? | N/A | No difference | Negative | |
| Field | 1 group, 5 ind. | Low | N/A | No difference | Negative | |
| Field | 5 groups, 17 ind. | Low | Average | No difference | Negative | |
| Lab | 1 group, 11 ind. | Low | Average | No difference | No clear relationship | |
| Lab | 2 groups, 33 ind. | Average | High or low | No difference | Negative | |
| Lab | 1 group, 17 ind. | N/A | N/A | No difference | Positive | |
| Lab | 1 group, 9 ind. | Low | Low | M more active | No relationship | |
| Lab | 18 ind. | Average | Average | F more active | N/A | |
| Lab | 7 groups, 45 ind? | Low | Low | N/A | Positive? | |
| Lab | 1 group, 11 ind. | Low | Average? | N/A | Negative | |
| Lab | N/A | Average | Average | No difference | N/A | |
| Lab | 6 groups 47 ind | Average | Average | F more active | Negative? | |
| Lab | 1 group, 40 ind.? | Low | Low? | No difference | Negative | |
| Lab | 3 groups, 65 ind. | Average | High | N/A | N/A | |
| Lab | 1 group. 31 ind? | N/A | N/A | No difference | Negative | |
| Lab | 3 groups, 99 ind | N/A | N/A | No difference | Negative or positive | |
| Lab | 3 groups, 48 ind | N/A | N/A | N/A | Negative | |
*The present study.
For simplification, levels of outside-nest activity and amount of work performed are considered equal. The question marks mark entries for which exact figures are not present in the cited resources but can be estimated indirectly.