Ethology may be related to the genetic structure of a population: Chaetodipus siccus as a study case

Autores/as

  • Eduardo Felipe Aguilera-Miller Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste.

Palabras clave:

agonistic encounters, gene flow, Heteromyidae, hierarchies of dominance, matrilines

Resumen

Philopatry is a biological trait present in a wide variety of zoological taxa. Such conduct is considered as the basis of social behavior among rodents as well as a promoter of spatial distribution of individuals. Females are typically philopatric, thereby they have access to resources to breed offspring. This philopatric tendency is partly responsible of the genetic structuring in the natural populations of mammals. Heteromyid rodents conform complex communities and the agonistic interactions among them are common. Aggressiveness is the way to establish dominance hierarchies. By means of setting a hierarchy, dominant individuals have priority access to critical resources. Chaetodipus siccus is an endemic heteromyid of the Baja California peninsula, distributed on an area of ~270 km2, in which a particular pattern of high variation of matrilineal lineages has been observed. That is why it is hypothesized the presence of multiple spatially segregated matrilineal lineages, which are promoted by the aggressive nature of the species, which leads to limited panmixia in the range of C. siccus. To test these hypotheses, it has been conducted a statistically parsimonious haplotype network study using matrilineal markers and behavioral experiments of intra and interspecific dominance. Thirty-four localities were surveyed through C. siccus distribution to capture specimens (n = 143) for the statistically parsimonious network. Muscle tissue was employed to DNA extraction and fragments of Cytb and COI genes were sequenced. To study intraspecific and interspecific dominance, ethological experiments under different conditions were conducted between females. For this purpose, 52 adult females of C. siccus and five adult females of C. arenarius, C. ammophilus, C. spinatus and C. rudinoris were captured alive and maintained in captivity. Encounters took place inside neutral arenas every other night. Individuals were housed individually inside social cages. Fifty-three haplotypes of Cytb and 15 of COI were identified from 143 individuals of C. siccus. A high variety of private haplotypes were observed (31 for Cytb and 5 for COI). The presence of a dominant individual over another was observed in all conditions of experiments of intraspecific and interspecific dominance. Dominant females were statistically more aggressive than subordinated females (P < 0.001) even C. siccus dominated the other species. A marked genetic structure is observed, with considerable presence of private haplotypes. It is considered that genetic structure occurs when subpopulations are at least partially isolated from each other. There are no appreciable physical barriers within the range of the species. This is why it is considered that ethological interactions more than geographical features may limit gene flow within the population of C. siccus. Structures with an unusual number of haplotypes in small geographical areas, such as C. siccus, have been previously recognized for other mammal species. It is argued that this pattern is the result of a philopatric character of females; such conduct restricts gene flow between areas. The existence of several matrilineal lineages geographically restricted proposes that females do not disperse, but remain within a very small geographic area. This points directly to the presence of philopatry in females. Agonistic behaviors are the means by which an individual maintains its hierarchy over others, defining its preferential access to resources. For females of C. siccus, its extremely aggressive nature and a territorial behavior have resulted in segregation of matrilineal lineages.

Biografía del autor/a

Eduardo Felipe Aguilera-Miller, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste.

Estudiante de Doctorado en el Centro de Investigaciones del Noroeste.

Citas

ÁLVAREZ-CASTAÑEDA, S. T., Y E. RIOS. 2011. Revision of Chaetodipus arenarius (Rodentia: Heteromyidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161:213–228.

ÁLVAREZ-CASTAÑEDA, S. T., Y R. W. MURPHY. 2014. The Endemic Insular and Peninsular Species Chaetodipus spinatus (Mammalia, Heteromyidae) Breaks Patterns for Baja California. PLoS ONE 9:e116146. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116146

AVISE, J. C. 2000. Phylogeography. The History and Formation of Species. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, EE. UU.

BLEICH, V. C., Y M. V. PRICE. 1995. Aggressive behavior of Dipodomys stephensi, and Dipodomys agilis, a sympatric congener. Journal of Mammalogy 76:646651.

BLUMSTEIN, D. T., Y K. B. ARMITAGE. 1999. Cooperative breeding in marmots. Oikos 84: 369382.

BROWN, J. H., Y B. A. HARNEY. 1993. Population and community ecology of heteromyid rodents in temperate habitats. Pp. 618651 en Biology of the Heteromyidae (Genoways, H. H., y J. H. Brown, eds.). Special publications No. 10, American Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, EE. UU.

CHESSER, R. K. 1991. Gene diversity and female philopatry. Genetics 127:437447.

CHESSER, R. K., O. E. RHODES JR., D. W. SUGG, Y A. SCHNABEL. 1993. Effective sizes for subdivided populations. Genetics 135:12211232.

CLEMENT, M., D. POSADA, Y K. A. CRANDALL. 2000. TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Molecular Ecology 9:16571660.

CLUTTON-BROCK, T. H. 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 236:339372.

CLUTTON-BROCK, T. H., Y D. LUKAS. 2012. The evolution of social philopatry and dispersal in female mammals. Molecular Ecology 21:472492.

COOPER, L. D., Y J. A. RANDALL. 2007. Seasonal changes in the home ranges of the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens): a study of flexible social structure. Journal of Mammalogy 88:10001008.

CUTRERA, A. P., E. A. LACEY, Y C. BUSCH. 2005. Genetic structure in solitary rodent (Ctenomys talarum): implications for kinship and dispersal. Molecular Ecology 14:25112523.

DAVIS, L. S. 1984. Behavioral interactions of Richardson’s ground squirrels: asymmetries based on kinship. Pp. 459460 en Biology of ground-dwelling squirrels: annual cycles, behavioral ecology, and sociality (Murie, J. O., y G. R. Michener, eds.). University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, EE. UU.

DIXON, M. D. 2011. Population genetic structure and natal philopatry in the widespread North Anerican bat Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 92:13431351.

DOEBELI, M., Y U. DIECKMANN. 2003. Speciation along environmental gradients. Nature 421:259264.

DUBUC-MESSIER, G., D. GARANT, P. BERGERON, Y D. RÉALE. 2012. Environmental conditions affect spatial genetic structures and dispersal patterns in a solitary rodent. Molecular Ecology 21:53635373.

EISENBERG, J. F. 1963. The behavior of heteromyid rodents. University of California Publications in Zoology 69:1100.

EXCOFFIER, L., G. LAVAL, Y S. SCHNEIDER. 2005. Arlequin ver. 3.0: An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 1:4750.

GENOWAYS, H. H., Y J. H. BROWN. 1993. Biology of the heteromyidae. American Society of Mammalogists. Shippensburg, EE. UU.

GREENWOOD, P. J. 1980. Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Animal Behaviour 28:11401162.

HAMILTON, W. D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1752.

HARPER, S. J., Y G. O. BATZIL. 1997. Monitoring use of runways by voles with passive integrated transponders. Journal of Mammalogy 77:364369.

HEDRICK, P. 2001. Conservation genetics: where are we now? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:629636.

HOLEKAMP, K.E., J. E. SMITH, C. C. STRELIOFF, R. C. VAN HORN, Y H. E. WATTS. 2012. Society, demography and genetic structure in the spotted hyena. Molecular Ecology 21:613632.

INNES, R. J., M. B. MCEACHERN, D. H. VAN VUREN, J. M. EADIE, D. A. KELT, Y M. L. JOHNSON. 2012. Genetic relatedness and spatial associations of dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes). Journal of Mammalogy 93:439446.

JOHANNESEN, E., J. BRUDEVOLL, M. JENSTAD, L. KORSLUND, Y S. KRISTOFFERSEN. 2002. Behavioural dominance of grey-sided voles over bank voles in dyadic encounters. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39:4347.

JONES, W. T. 1993. The social systems of heteromyid rodents. Pp. 575595 en Biology of the Heteromyidae (Genoways, H. H. y J. H. Brown, eds.). Special Publications No. 10. The American Society of Mammalogists. Shippensburg, EE. UU.

KAPPELER, P. M., B. WIMMER, D. ZINNER, Y D. TAUTZ. 2002. The hidden matrilineal structure of a solitary lemur: implications for primate social evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 269:17551763.

KAPPELER, P. M., Y C. P. VAN SCHAIK. 2002. Evolution of primate social systems. International Journal of Primatology 23:707740.

KAUFMANN, J. H. 1983. On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biological Reviews 58:120.

KINAHAN A. A., Y N. PILLAY. 2008. Dominance status influences female reproductive strategy in a territorial african rodent Rhabdomys pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:579587.

LACEY, E. A. 2000. Spatial and social systems of subterranean rodents. Pp. 255296 en Life underground: the biology of subterranean rodents (Lacey, E. A., J. L. Patton, y G. N. Cameron, eds.). University of Chicago Press. Chicago, EE. UU.

LAVINIA, P. D., K. C. R. KERR, P. L. TUBARO, P. D. N. HEBERT, Y D. A. LIJTMAER. 2016. Calibrating the molecular clock beyond cytochrome b: assessing the evolutionary rate of COI in birds. Journal of Avian Biology 47:8491.

MACARTHUR, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Harper y Row. New York, EE. UU.

MCGUIRE, B., L. L. GETZ, J. E. HOFMANN, T. PIZZUTO, Y B. FRASE. 1993. Natal dispersal and philopatry in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in relation to population density, season, and natal social environment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32:293302.

MÉNDEZ-HARCLERODE, F. M., J. D. HANSON, C. F. FULHORST, M. L. MILAZZO, D. C. RUTHVEN III, Y R. D. BRADLEY. 2005. Genetic diversity within the southern plains woodrat (Neotoma micropus) in southern Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 86:180190.

MERRIAM, C. H. 1894. Descriptions of four new pocket mice from Lower California, collected by Walter E. Bryan. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Series 2 4:457462.

MESHRIY, M. G, J. A. RANDALL, Y L. RANDALL. 2011. Kinship associations of a solitary rodent, Dipodomys ingens, at fluctuating population densities. Animal Behaviour 82:643650.

MICHENER, G. R. 1983. Kin identification, matriarchies and the evolution of sociality in ground-dwelling sciurids. Pp. 528572 en Advances in the Study of Mammalian Behavior, Vol. 7 (Eisenberg, J. F., y D. G. Kleiman, eds.). American Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, EE. UU.

MOYNIHAN, M. 1998. The social regulation of competition and aggression in animals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, EE.UU.

NABHOLZ, B., S. GLÉMIN, Y N. GALTIER. 2008. Strong variations of mitocondrial mutation rate across mammalsthe longevity hypothesis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25:120130.

NEISWENTER, S. A., Y B. R. RIDDLE. 2010. Diversification of the Perognathus flavus species group in arid grasslands of western North America. Journal of Mammalogy 91:348362.

NEWMARK, J. E., Y S. H. JENKINS. 2000. Sex differences in agonistic behavior of Merriam’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami). The American Midland Naturalist 143:377388.

NOWAK, R. M. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the world, 6th ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, EE. UU.

OLEINICHENKO, V. YU. 2000. Behavior of the shrews Sorex volnuchini and S. raddei. Zoologichesky Zhurnal 79:939953.

OSGOOD, W. H. 1907. Four new pocket mice. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 20:1922.

PATTON, J. L., Y S. T. ÁLVAREZ-CASTAÑEDA. 1999. Family Heteromyidae. Pp. 351443 en Mamíferos del Noroeste de México (Álvarez-Castañeda, S. T., y J. L. Patton, eds.). Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste. La Paz, México.

PERRI, M., Y J. A. RANDALL. 1999. Behavioral mechanisms of coexistence in sympatric species of desert rodents, Dipodomys ordii and D. merriami. Journal of Mammalogy 80:12971310.

RANDALL, J. A. 1984a. Mating strategies of a nocturnal desert rodent (Dipodomys spectabilis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28:215220.

RANDALL, J. A. 1984b. Territorial defense and advertisement by footdrumming in Bannertail kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spectabilis) at high and low population densities. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 16:1120.

RANDALL, J. A. 1989. Neighbor recognition in a solitary desert rodent (Dipodomys merriami). Ethology 81:123133.

RANDALL, J. A. 1993. Behavioural adaptations of desert rodents (Heteromyidae). Animal Behaviour 45:263–287.

RIOS E., Y S. T. ÁLVAREZ-CASTAÑEDA. 2013. Nomenclatural change of Chaetodipus dalquesti. Western North America Naturalist 73:399-400.

ROSS, K. G. 2001. Molecular ecology of social behaviour: analyses of breeding systems and genetic structure. Molecular Ecology 10:265284.

ROTH, E. L. 1976. A new species of pocket mouse (Perognathus: Heteromyidae) from the Cape Region of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 57:562566.

ROWELL, T. E. 1974. Concept of social dominance. Behavioral Biology 11:131154.

RYCHLIK, L., Y R. ZWOLAK. 2006. Interespecific aggression and behavioural dominance among four sympatric species of shrews. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:434448.

SHIER, D. M., Y J. A. RANDALL. 2007. Use of different signaling modalities to communicate status by dominant and subordinate Heermann’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys heermanni). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:10231032.

SIGURÃARDÓTTIR, S., A. HELGASON, J. R, GULCHER, K. STEFANSSON, Y P. DONNELLY. 2000. The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region. American Journal of Human Genetics 66:15991609.

SIKES, R. S., W. L., GANNON, AND THE ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS. 2011. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research. Journal of Mammalogy 92:235253.

SILK, J. B. 2007. The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 362:539559.

SOLOMON, N. G. 2003. A reexamination of factors influencing philopatry in rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 84:11821197.

SOLOMON, N. G., Y L. L. GETZ. 1997. Examination of alternative hypotheses for cooperative breeding in rodents. Pp. 199230 en Cooperative breeding in mammals (Solomon, N. G., and J. A. French, eds.). Cambridge University Press. New York, EE. UU.

VAN STAADEN, M. J., R. K. CHESSER, Y G. R. MICHENER. 1994. Genetic correlations and matrilineal structure in a population of Spermophilus richardsonii. Journal of Mammalogy 75:573582.

VAN STAADEN, M. J., G. R. MICHENER, Y R. K. CHESSER. 1996. Spatial analysis of microgeographic genetic structure in Richardson’s ground squirrels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:11871195.

STORZ, J. F. 1999. Genetic consequences of mammalian social structure. Journal of Mammalogy 80:553569.

TAJIMA, F. 1993. Measurement of DNA polymorphism. Pp. 3759 en Mechanisms of molecular Evolution. Introduction to molecular paleopopulation biology (Takahata, N. y A. G. Clark, eds.). Japanese Scientific Societies Press, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Tokyo, Japón.

TEMPLETON, A.R., K. A. CRANDALL, Y C. F. SING. 1992. A cladistic analysis of phenotypic associations with haplotypes inferred from restriction endonuclease mapping and DNA sequence data. III. Cladogram estimation. Genetics 132:619-633.

VANDER WALL, S. B. 1990. Food Hoarding in Animals. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, EE. UU.

VAUGHAN, T. A., J. A. RYAN, Y N. J. CZAPLEWSKI. 2000. Mammalogy, fourth ed. Harcourt College Publishers. EE. UU.

VÁZQUEZ, J., Y S. T. ÁLVAREZ-CASTAÑEDA. 2011. Spatial relationships between burrows of an insular population of Dipodomys merriami. Mammalian Biology 76:577582.

WANG, Y., W. LIU, G. M. WANG, W. ZHONG, Y X. WAN. 2011. Genetic Consequences of Group Living in Mongolian Gerbils. The Journal of Heredity 102:554561.

WASER, P. M., Y W. T. JONES. 1983. Natal philopatry among solitary mammals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 58:355390.

WEISS, C. H. 2007. Statistica v8, StatSoft, Inc. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 91:339341.

WILCOXON, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:8083.

WILSON, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Belknap. Cambridge, EE. UU.

WIMMER, B., D. TAUTZ, Y P. M. KAPPELER. 2002. The genetic population structure of the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus), a basal primate from Madagascar. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52:166175.

WINTERS, J. B., Y P. M. WASER. 2003. Gene dispersal and outbreeding in philopatric mammal. Molecular Ecology 12:22512259.

WRIGHT, S. 1965. The interpretation of population structure by F-Statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19:395420.

WRIGHT, S. 1969. Evolution and the genetics of populations. The theory of gene frequencies. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, EE. UU.

YOERG, S. I. 1999. Solitary is not asocial: effects of social contact in kangaroo rats (Heteromyidae: Dipodomys heermanni). Ethology 105:317333.

YOERG, S. I., Y D. M. SHIER. 2000. Captive breeding and anti-predator behavior of the Heermann’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni). Pp 156 en Final Report. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, EE. UU.

Publicado

2016-08-19

Número

Sección

Articles