Mating behavior differences in monogamous and polygamous sympatric closely related species Mus musculus and Mus spicilegus and their role in behavioral precopulatory isolation

Abstract

Closely related species with different mating system may be the most suitable model taxa for studies aimed to highlight the cause formation of species-specific peculiarities of sexual behavior and behavioral mechanisms of precopulatory isolation. The current study aimed to clarify the role of the mating system and lifestyle, including ecology features, in patterning of behavioral activities during mating, as well as the role of behavioral patterns in the precopulatory isolation of closely related Mus taxa. Test subjects were closely related sympatric species: polygynous/promiscuous M. musculus and presumably monogamous M. spicilegus, reproductively isolated in nature. Dyadic encounters of male and receptive female were conducted in clear chambers and the behavior was recorded by means of video camera. Sexual behavior, culminating in ejaculation, was observed in conspecific dyadic encounters only; it occurred more frequently and with longer duration in males of M. spicilegus, than in males of M. musculus. In conspecific encounters, males of M. spicilegus exhibited a higher level of affiliative behavior than females. In both species total frequency and duration of aggressive behavior was higher in females compared to males. In heterospecific dyadic encounters the behavioral pattern of males and females was strictly different from those in conspecific encounters, and the elements of aggressive behavior prevailed. We demonstrated that not only the pattern of sexual behavior is important for reproductive isolation, but also all types of behavioral interactions preceded copulation. In Mus species different stereotypes of mating behavior during the encounter of potential sexual partners can prevent successful copulation and may be associated with mating system. How to cite this article: Ambaryan A.V., Voznessenskaya V.V., Kotenkova E.V. 2019. Mating behavior differences in monogamous and polygamous sympatric closely related species Mus musculus and Mus spicilegus and their role in behavioral precopulatory isolation // Russian J. Различия поведения при спаривании у симпатрических моногамного и полигамного близкородственных видовMus musculus, Mus spicilegus и их роль в формировании поведенческой прекопуляционной изоляции А.В. Амбарян, В.В. Вознесенская, Е.В. Котенкова РЕЗЮМЕ. Близкородственные виды с разной системой спариваний являются наиболее подходящими модельными таксонами для исследований, направленных на выявление причин формирования видоспецифических особенностей полового поведения и поведенческих механизмов прекопуляционной изоляции. Целью исследования было выяснение роли системы спаривания и образа жизни, включая экологические особенности, в формировании паттернов поведения во время спаривания, а также роли поведенческих паттернов в прекопуляционной изоляции близкородственных таксонов Mus. Объектами исследования были близкородственные симпатрические и репродуктивно изолированные в природе виды: полигинный / промискуитетный M. musculus и предположительно моногамный M. spicilegus. Парные ссаживания самцов и самок в...

Fitness effects of breeding strategy: implications for life history trait evolution and mouse husbandry

“…27 For example, Mus musculus is considered polygynous or promiscuous while Mus spicilegus is monogamous, suggesting that there may be some level of genetic control of breeding phenotypes and social group behavior. 14,28,29 Determining the relative roles of genetics and environment to the magnitude of the fitness tradeoffs between solitary and communal breeding could offer new insights into the evolutionary stability of these alternative reproductive strategies.…”

Evolutionary rates of testes-expressed genes differ in monogamous and promiscuousPeromyscusspecies

“…However, genetic monogamy (where males and females only mate with one individual for life) has evolved multiple times independently across mammalian lineages (Lukas and Clutton-Brock 2013). Promiscuous and monogamous species often exhibit morphological, physiological and behavioral differences associated with mate fidelity which can be contextualized in light of selection (Ambaryan, Voznessenskaya, and Kotenkova 2019;Wey, Vrana, and Mabry 2017;Stanyon and Bigoni 2014;Tidière et al 2015;Dapper and Wade 2016;Alberto Civetta and Ranz 2019). Oftentimes morphological and physiological differences are associated with the male testes and sperm performance, since in contrast with monogamous species, promiscuous males are constantly competing to fertilize females (Dapper and Wade 2016;Firman and Simmons 2010a).…”