title: Compatibility drives female preference and reproductive success in the monogamous California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) more strongly than male testosterone measures.
abstract: Female assessment of male attractiveness and how preferred qualities impact reproductive success is central to the study of mate choice. Male attractiveness may depend on traits beneficial to the reproductive success (RS) of any female, termed 'universal quality', and/or on behavioral and biological interactions between potential mates that reflect 'compatibility'. The steroid hormone testosterone (T) often underlies male attractiveness in rodents and is associated with enhanced paternal care in the monogamous and biparental California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). We hypothesized that (1) T-characteristics are universally attractive to female California mice and that (2) if reproductive success is higher for females mated with preferred males, then females mated with males preferred by other females will also have higher reproductive success. Alternatively, we speculated that pair compatibility, based on emergent pair qualities, is important for a species with coordinated offspring care. We assessed individual T-characteristics in three ways: (1) T-response to GnRH challenges (2) baseline T-level and (3) T-response to a female. Testosterone-response did not predict female preference, but females spent more time investigating males with higher baseline T (accounting for only 9.6% of the variation in investigation time). None of the T-measures was associated with RS. Females paired with males they preferred produced litters more quickly and had higher RS than females paired with their non-preferred males. Naïve females who did not undergo preference tests had equivalent RS regardless of whether their mate was preferred or non-preferred by another female. These data suggest that higher male T elicits investigation, but female preference in the California mouse is more strongly linked with compatibility because individual preference was a better predictor of RS than any T measure.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. erin.gleason@tufts.edu
authors.forename: Erin D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Gleason
authors.forename: Mary A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Holschbach
authors.forename: Catherine A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Marler
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D005298:Fertility / Q000502:physiology*; D007987:Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone / Q000494:pharmacology; D008297:Male; D052586:Mating Preference, Animal / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology*; D010542:Peromyscus / Q000502:physiology*; D013739:Testosterone / Q000097:blood*
chemical_list: D007987:Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; D013739:Testosterone
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2010 Feb;57(2):147-54
references.pmid: 19833131
references.citation: Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2009 Jul;Appendix 4:Appendix 4I
references.pmid: 19575469
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:6
references.pmid: 11459516
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2005 Jan;47(1):56-64
references.pmid: 15579266
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1998 Nov;56(5):1177-1183
references.pmid: 9819334
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2002 Feb;41(1):51-8
references.pmid: 11863383
references.citation: Front Neuroendocrinol. 2009 Oct;30(4):460-469
references.pmid: 19422843
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2009 Aug;56(2):214-9
references.pmid: 19426733
references.citation: Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2006 Nov;149(2):182-9
references.pmid: 16814785
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12393-8
references.pmid: 20616093
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1998 Apr;55(4):1029-42
references.pmid: 9632487
references.citation: Theriogenology. 1998 Jul 15;50(2):177-83
references.pmid: 10734484
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Jan 22;267(1439):147-50
references.pmid: 10687819
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Mar;59(3):658-71
references.pmid: 15856707
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Apr 22;269(1493):823-9
references.pmid: 11958714
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2005 Sep;48(3):259-67
references.pmid: 15979073
references.citation: Am Nat. 2007 Dec;170(6):864-75
references.pmid: 18171169
references.citation: Physiol Behav. 2000 May;69(3):309-15
references.pmid: 10869597
references.citation: Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 1991;99(4):603-7
references.pmid: 1679696
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Feb;59(2):371-378
references.pmid: 10675259
references.citation: J Endocrinol. 1983 Jan;96(1):43-52
references.pmid: 6681625
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2001 Aug;40(1):32-42
references.pmid: 11467882
references.citation: Nature. 1989 Jan 12;337(6203):166-9
references.pmid: 2911350
references.citation: J Reprod Fertil. 1992 Aug;95(3):729-36
references.pmid: 1404090
references.citation: Physiol Behav. 1994 Feb;55(2):347-53
references.pmid: 8153177
references.citation: Horm Behav. 1993 Dec;27(4):523-38
references.pmid: 8294120
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2001 Aug;40(1):51-64
references.pmid: 11467884
references.citation: Brain Behav Evol. 1974;9(2):95-106
references.pmid: 4412636
references.citation: J Exp Med. 1976 Nov 2;144(5):1324-35
references.pmid: 1032893
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2003 Sep;44(3):185-98
references.pmid: 14609541
references.citation: Physiol Behav. 1982 Jun;28(6):953-8
references.pmid: 7202224
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2008 Jan;21(1):39-48
references.pmid: 18034801
references.citation: Am J Physiol. 1982 Sep;243(3):E257-63
references.pmid: 7114252
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2004 Feb;45(2):115-21
references.pmid: 15019798