Does fertility trump monogamy?
Monogamous animals face an interesting dilemma: if and when to terminate a nonproductive relationship. To address this issue, we asked whether reproductive compatibility is a criterion for maintaining a monogamous pair-bond between mates. Prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster), are small rodents that form long-term, monogamous pair-bonds evidenced by a strong preference for their familiar partners, and thus are an excellent model animal in which to study mate-fidelity. Accordingly, we examined partner-preferences by male prairie voles and related their behavior to the reproductive status of their mates. We found that, when given a choice between their familiar female partner and a stranger, male prairie voles differ in their responses depending on the pregnancy status of the partner. Males that were paired with females for two weeks displayed mate-fidelity only when mating had been initiated within ~48 hours after pairing. In contrast, males whose mates experienced a delay in the onset of sexual receptivity displayed non-selective affiliative behavior. We also found that, in addition to being appropriately timed, mating must be successful. Males that mated with ovariectomized females for whom pregnancy was precluded did not display mate-fidelity even though mating was initiated within the proper timeframe. These observations of mate-fidelity only when the partner's pregnancy was sufficiently advanced relative to the duration of the pairing suggest that mating must be both successful and timely. Thus, reproductive compatibility can influence mate-fidelity.
Curtis
J Thomas
JT
Department of Pharmacology & Physiology, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Jul;4(7):551-62
12838330
Biol Reprod. 1999 Mar;60(3):756-62
10026127
Biol Reprod. 1980 Dec;23(5):1038-45
7008851
Horm Behav. 1987 Mar;21(1):65-73
3549516
Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Sep 22;264(1386):1261-70
9332011
Physiol Behav. 2009 Sep 7;98(3):367-73
19576236
J Neuroendocrinol. 1993 Jun;5(3):247-55
8319000
Brain Res. 2001 May 18;901(1-2):167-74
11368964
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1985 Winter;9(4):563-71
3909015
Q Rev Biol. 1977 Mar;52(1):39-69
857268
Brain Behav Evol. 1973;8(6):426-52
4802024
Horm Behav. 1987 Mar;21(1):74-82
3549517
Anim Cogn. 2008 Jan;11(1):147-59
17653778
Results Probl Cell Differ. 1999;25:1-21
10339739
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 15;93(21):11980-4
8876248
Science. 1977 Jul 15;197(4300):215-23
327542
Behav Processes. 2009 May;81(1):60-4
19429197
Physiol Behav. 1992 Oct;52(4):635-9
1409933
Physiol Behav. 1987;39(3):309-14
3554283
Behav Processes. 2002 Oct 31;60(1):41-52
12429391
Physiol Behav. 1987;40(3):349-55
3310053
ILAR J. 2004;45(1):35-45
14752206
Sci Am. 1993 Jun;268(6):100-6
8516669
Behav Processes. 1998 Apr;43(1):79-86
24897643
Physiol Behav. 1994 May;55(5):885-9
8022909
Behav Processes. 2004 Jul 30;67(1):47-54
15182925
Horm Behav. 1992 Sep;26(3):339-49
1398553