| Literature DB >> 29396672 |
Agata Miska-Schramm1, Joanna Kapusta2, Małgorzata Kruczek2.
Abstract
The impact of human activity on the environment has led to a steady increase of the amounts of copper in the ecosystems. This element accumulates in plants and water, potentially exposing rodents to its harmful effects. In industrial districts, a decrease in the density of small rodent populations has been observed. This decline may be caused by many factors, including mortality, decreased fertility, or impaired sexual behavior. The decline in the reproductive abilities of small rodents after copper exposure was demonstrated in our previous work (Miska-Schramm A, Kruczek M, Kapusta J, Ecotoxicology 23:1546-1554, 2014). The aim of the presented research was to determine how copper administered at concentrations similar to those recorded in industrial districts (Cu I-150 mg/kg, Cu II-600 mg/kg, C-control) affects the sexual behavior of small rodents. The model species was the bank vole (Myodes glareolus). The behavior and vocalizations of male-female pairs were recorded during open-field tests: ♂C vs. ♀C; ♂Cu I vs. ♀C; ♂Cu II vs. ♀C while in preference tests, female behavior was assessed in the following combinations: ♀C vs. ♂C & ♂Cu I; ♀C vs. ♂C & ♂Cu II. In the presented work, we show that copper decreased the males' sexual attractiveness. Females showed suppressed preference towards males treated with 600 mg/kg copper. The number of sniffs and a number of approaches towards Cu II males was significantly lower than towards control individuals. Also, in preference test with 150 mg/kg treated animals, total activity was lower towards copper treated animals. At the same time, copper did not influence intra-sexual interactions.Entities:
Keywords: Bank vole; Copper; Preference test; Sexual behavior
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29396672 PMCID: PMC5859705 DOI: 10.1007/s10646-018-1902-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecotoxicology ISSN: 0963-9292 Impact factor: 2.823
Latency to first approach, attack, ultrasonic call; number of aggressive approaches, nonaggressive approaches, sniffs, ultrasonic calls; time of sniffing and attacks presented by control females (C) and by water or copper-treated males (C, Cu I or Cu II) in 10-min open-field test
| ♀C vs. ♂C | ♀C vs. ♂Cu I | ♀C vs. ♂Cu II |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latency to first approach [sec] | 77.3 ± 19.5 | 70.1 ± 14.8 | 84.9 ± 26.8 | H(2,33) = 0.01 | NS |
| Aggressive approaches [no.] | 6.7 ± 1.4 | 5.8 ± 1.2 | 4.8 ± 1.0 | F(2,33) = 0.55 | NS |
| Nonaggressive approaches [no.] | 7.3 ± 2.4 | 6.9 ± 2.2 | 6.2 ± 1.2 | F(2,33) = 0.07 | NS |
| Latency to first attack [sec] | 147.2 ± 46.9 | 197.1 ± 71.3 | 240.9 ± 70.9 | H(2,33) = 0.18 | NS |
| Attack time [sec] | 22.0 ± 5.8 | 13.9 ± 3.4 | 10.5 ± 3.1 | H(2,33) = 2.42 | NS |
| Sniffs [no] | 19.3 ± 6.2 | 17.6 ± 3.7 | 22.8 ± 4.6 | F(2,33) = 0.29 | NS |
| Sniffing time [sec] | 99.6 ± 26.6 | 96.3 ± 21.5 | 170.5 ± 36.7 | H(2,33) = 2.63 | NS |
| Latency to first ultrasound [sec] | 89.3 ± 25.0 | 63.1 ± 20.4 | 67.8 ± 18.0 | H(2,33) = 0.82 | NS |
| Ultrasonic calls [no.] | 116.3 ± 17.5 | 110.6 ± 37.8 | 120.9 ± 18.2 | F(2,33) = 0.96 | NS |
Means ± S.E
Latency to first approach, attack, ultrasonic call; number of aggressive approaches, nonaggressive approaches, sniffs, ultrasonic calls; time of sniffing and attacks presented by (a) control female (C) in interaction with male (C, Cu I, Cu II) or by (b) male (C, Cu I, Cu II) in interaction with control female in 10-min open-field test
| ♀C vs. ♂C | ♀C vs. ♂Cu I | ♀C vs. ♂Cu II |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | |||||
| Aggressive approaches [no.] | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 3 ± 0.3 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | F(2,33) = 0.66 | NS |
| Nonaggressive approaches [no.] | 2.9 ± 1.4 | 2.7 ± 0.9 | 2.3 ± 2.5 | F(2,33) = 0.92 | NS |
| Sniffs [no.] | 16.6 ± 8.4 | 6.9 ± 1.9 | 8.6 ± 7.1 | F(2,33) = 0.35 | NS |
| Sniffing time [sec] | 32.8 ± 11.7 | 37.1 ± 14.8 | 51.7 ± 15.0 | H(2,33) = 0.91 | NS |
| Environmental activity [sec] | 108.4 ± 30.3 | 93.9 ± 27.6 | 143.4 ± 27.1 | H(2,33) = 1.92 | NS |
| Self-grooming [sec] | 19.4 ± 7.5 | 9.7 ± 3.5 | 14.9 ± 4.6 | H(2,33) = 1.11 | NS |
| (b) | |||||
| Aggressive approaches [no.] | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | F(2,33) = 0.7 | NS |
| Nonaggressive approaches [no.] | 4.3 ± 1.4 | 4.3 ± 1.9 | 3.8 ± 1.0 | F(2,33) = 0.97 | NS |
| Sniffs [no.] | 10.6 ± 3.7 | 10.7 ± 2.9 | 14.3 ± 3.4 | F(2,33) = 0.68 | NS |
| Sniffing time [sec] | 58.8 ± 20.0 | 59.3 ± 15.2 | 103.9 ± 23.4 | H(2,33) = 2.45 | NS |
| Environmental activity [sec] | 94.4 ± 21.2 | 84.1 ± 19.3 | 149.0 ± 28.3 | H(2,33) = 3.47 | NS |
| Self-grooming [sec] | 14.5 ± 4.7 | 7.5 ± 3.2 | 12.1 ± 2.8 | H(2,33) = 2.1 | NS |
Means ± S.E
Fig. 1Total activity, number of approaches and sniffs presented by control female towards anaesthetized male treated with 150 mg/kg copper solution (Cu I; pattern bars) and control male (C; open bars). Means bearing the same letter differ significantly; a—p < 0.05. Number of tested females —12. Means ± S.E
Fig. 2Time of sniffing presented by control female towards anaesthetized male treated with 150 mg/kg copper solution (Cu I; pattern bars) and control male (C; open bars). Number of tested females—12. Means ± S.E
Fig. 3Total activity, number of approaches and sniffs presented by control female towards anaesthetized male treated with 600 mg/kg copper solution (Cu II; pattern bars) and control male (C; open bars); Means bearing the same letter differ significantly; a, b, c—p < 0.05. Number of tested females—12. Means ± S.E
Fig. 4Time of sniffing presented by control female towards anaesthetized male treated with 600 mg/kg copper solution (Cu II; pattern bar) and control male (C; open bar). Number of tested females—12. Means ± S.E