Communal nesting and communal nursing in house mice, Mus musculus domesticus

Manning, C. Jo; Dewsbury, Donald A.; Wakeland, Edward K.; Potts, Wayne K.

doi:10.1016/0003-3472(95)80134-0

Cited by 159 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Communal nursing often occurs because females are unable to distinguish their pups from those of other mothers, particularly when litters are born within a few days of each other (e.g. Manning et al, 1995; but see Chantrey and Jenkins, 1982). However, studies of communal nursing in semi-natural and laboratory populations show that it can actually be beneficial.…”

Section: Mating and Reproduction: Mate Choice And Parental Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, studies of communal nursing in semi-natural and laboratory populations show that it can actually be beneficial. Communally nursing females, especially sisters, exhibit a greater lifetime reproductive success, and their pups exhibit increased growth rates and weaning weights (König, 1994;Manning et al, 1995; although see Smith, 1981). There remains debate as to whether communal rearing is an adaptive strategy even in optimal habitats, or a response to ecological constraints such as limited resource availability (e.g.…”

Section: Mating and Reproduction: Mate Choice And Parental Carementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

Latham

Mason

2004

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

290

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding a species' behaviour in natural conditions can give insights into its development, responses and welfare in captivity. Here, we review research and pest control literatures on the free-living house mouse (Mus musculus), analysing its sensory world, developmental processes and behaviour to suggest how laboratory environments might affect mouse welfare, normalcy, test design, and behaviour. Mouse development from foetus to weaning is influenced by prenatal stress and nutrient levels, and post-natal litter size and other factors affecting maternal care, all with lasting effects on adult bodyweight, aggression, activity levels, stress responsiveness and masculinisation. These influences may well be important in the laboratory, for example unwittingly differing between facilities leading to site-differences in phenotype. Murine senses are dominated by olfactory, auditory and tactile cues. Their hearing extends into the ultrasonic, and vision, from mid-range wavelengths to the ultraviolet. In mouse facilities, behaviour and welfare may therefore also be affected by sensory stimuli unnoticed by humans. The physical and social environment and behaviour of wild mice differ greatly from those of laboratory mice. Dispersal age varies with resource-levels and social cues, and mice often either live alone or in family groups. Mice occupy territories/ranges measuring a few square meters to several square kilometers, and which allow running, climbing, and burrowing. Mice are often active during dawn/dusk, and spend their time patrolling their territories, investigating neighbours' odour cues, foraging, finding mates and rearing litters. The potential impact of these many differences and restrictions on laboratory mouse development, normalcy and welfare has only begun to be explored.

show abstract

Section: Mating and Reproduction: Mate Choice And Parental Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mating and Reproduction: Mate Choice And Parental Carementioning

confidence: 99%

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

Latham

Mason

2004

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

290

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Communal breeding is a rare phenomenon in mammals (Hayes 2000), but has been observed regularly in commensal wild house mice (Mus domesticus) under laboratory conditions (Wilkinson and Baker 1988;Manning et al 1992Manning et al , 1995König 1994b;Dobson et al 2000;Dobson and Baudoin 2002), in semi-natural enclosures (Wilkinson and Baker 1988;Manning et al 1992Manning et al , 1995König 1994b;Dobson et al 2000;Dobson and Baudoin 2002), and occasionally in feral populations (Wilkinson and Baker 1988;Manning et al 1992;Drickamer, personal communication). Commensal house mice often live in demes characterised by territorial defence polygyny (Lidicker 1976;Bronson 1979;Butler 1980;van Zegeren 1980;Singleton and Hay 1983;Wolff 1985;Gerlach 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin-preferential cooperation, dominance-dependent reproductive skew, and competition for mates in communally nesting female house mice

Rusu

Krackow

2004

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about the behavioural mechanisms facilitating kin-preferential communal breeding in wild house mice (Mus domesticus). We evaluated the effect of kinship and male availability on aggression, social structure and reproductive skew in groups of female mice freely interacting and reproducing in seminatural indoor enclosures. Triplets of either sisters or nonsisters were established in enclosures provided with either one or three littermate males, which were unrelated and unfamiliar to the females. Sisters were more spatially associated and less aggressive than non-sisters, leading to higher incidences of communal breeding and reproduction. This is in agreement with theoretical considerations on kin selection in house mice. Reproductive success was highly skewed in favour of dominant females due to subordinate infertility or complete loss of first litters, which might have been caused by dominant females. In spite of this, subordinates only rarely dispersed from the enclosures, suggesting that perceived dispersal risk generally outweighed relatively reduced reproductive potentials. Aggression levels among females were significantly higher when one male was available, compared to when three males were available. We suggest that this might result from higher female-female competition for mates, due to the risk of missing fertilisation when synchronously oestrous females encounter limited numbers of males in a deme. Our results indicate that, first, communal nursing in house mice might have evolved to 'make the best out of a bad job' rather than to enhance offspring fitness; and, second, that female-female matecompetition might play an important role in shaping female social structure in this polygynous mammal.

show abstract

“…Almost 50 7 years ago, Southwick (1955) published for the first time that females of the same reproductive group can pool their litters in communal nests. Since then, this behaviour has been documented both in the field and in captivity (Sayler & Salmon 1969;Wilkinson & Baker 1988;König 1993;Manning et al 1995).…”

Section: Non-offspring Nursing In House Mice: a Case Studymentioning

confidence: 90%

Non-offspring nursing in mammals: general implications from a case study on house mice

König

2006

Cooperation in Primates and Humans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communal nesting and communal nursing in house mice, Mus musculus domesticus

Cited by 159 publications

References 36 publications

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

From house mouse to mouse house: the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory

Kin-preferential cooperation, dominance-dependent reproductive skew, and competition for mates in communally nesting female house mice

Non-offspring nursing in mammals: general implications from a case study on house mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About