Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The number of male conspecifics affects the odour preferences and the copulatory behaviour of male meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Behaviour

We hypothesized that male meadow voles adjust their odour preferences and sexual behaviours in response to the presence and number of male conspecifics they perceive to have visited a sexually receptive female conspecific. Male voles only preferred the odour of the female previously associated with 3 or 5 males to that of the unfamiliar female. Male voles also had a shorter latency to mate and a shorter mating duration when they were paired with the female that was previously associated with the bedding of 3 or 5 males compared to males paired with an unfamiliar female. Mating and reproductive success, however, were similar for males paired with either female. Thus, male voles use public information provided by scent marks of male conspecifics and adjust their responses in favour of a female that they perceive to been visited by several males, although she may represent a high risk of sperm competition.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

*Corresponding author’s e-mail address:

Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Auld H.L., Godin J.-G.J. (2015). "Sexual voyeurs and copiers: social copying and audience effect on male mate in the guppy". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 69: 1795-1807. [Crossref]
2. Barbosa M., Magurran A.E. (2006). "Female mating decisions: maximizing fitness?" — J. Fish. Biol. Vol 68: 1636-1661. [Crossref]
3. Berteaux D., Bety J., Rengifo E., Bergeron J. (1999). "Multiple paternity in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus): investigating the role of the female". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 45: 283-291. [Crossref]
4. Bierbach D., Sommer-Trembo C., Hanisch J., Wolf M., Plath M. (2015). "Personality affects mate choice: bolder males show stronger audience effects under high competition". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 26: 1314-1325. [Crossref]
5. Boonstra R., Xia X., Pavone L. (1993). "Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 4: 83-89. [Crossref]
6. Bretman A., Fricke C., Chapman T. (2009). "Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 276: 1705-1711. [Crossref]
7. Bretman A., Westmancoat J.D., Chapman T. (2013a). "Male control of mating duration following exposure to rivals in fruitflies". — J. Insect Physiol. Vol 59: 824-827. [Crossref]
8. Bretman A., Westmancoat J.D., Gage M.J., Chapman T. (2013b). "Costs and benefits of lifetime exposure to mating rivals in Drosophila melanogaster". — Evolution Vol 67: 13-22. [Crossref]
9. Brown G.R., Fawcett T.W. (2005). "Sexual selection: copycat mating in birds". — Curr. Biol. Vol 15: R626-R628. [Crossref]
10. Brown R.E., MacDonald D.W. (eds) (1985). Social odours in mammals, vols 1 and 2. — Clarendon Press, Oxford.
11. Callender S., Blackwell P.R.Y., Jennions M.D. (2012). "Context-dependent male mate choice: the effects of competitor presence and competitor size". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 23: 355-360. [Crossref]
12. Coolen I., van Bergen Y., Day R.I., Laland K.N. (2003). "Species differences in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 270: 2413-2419. [Crossref]
13. Coolen I., Ward A.J.W., Hart P.J.B., Laland K.N. (2005). "Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 16: 865-870. [Crossref]
14. Dall S.R.X., Giraldeau L.-A., Olsson O., McNamara J.M., Stephens D.W. (2006). "Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology". — Trends Res. Ecol. Evol. Vol 20: 189-193.
15. Danchin E., Giraldeau L.-A., Valone T.J., Wagner R.H. (2004). "Public information: from noisy neighbors to cultural evolution". — Science Vol 305: 487-491. [Crossref]
16. delBarco-Trillo J., Ferkin M.H. (2004). "Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males". — Nature Vol 431: 446-449. [Crossref]
17. delBarco-Trillo J., Ferkin M.H. (2006). "Sperm competition intensity in meadow voles". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 17: 581-585. [Crossref]
18. Dewsbury D.A. (1984). "Sperm competition in muroid rodents". — In: Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems ( Smith R.R., ed.). Academic Press, New York, NY, p.  547-571. [Crossref]
19. Dosen L.D., Montgomerie R. (2004). "Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 55: 266-271. [Crossref]
20. Drickamer L.C. (1989). "Odor preferences of wild stock female house mice (Mus domesticus) tested at three ages using urine and other cues from conspecific males and females". — J. Chem. Ecol. Vol 15: 1971-1987. [Crossref]
21. Dubois F., Belzile A. (2012). "Audience effect alters male mating preferences in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata)". — PLoS ONE Vol 7: e43697, doi:.
22. Duboscq J., Romano V., MacIntosh A., Sueur C. (2016). "Social information transmission in animals: lessons from studies of diffusion". — Front. Psychol. Vol 7: 1147. doi: . [Crossref]
23. Dugatkin L.A. (2000). The imitation factor: evolution beyond the gene. — The Free Press, New York, NY.
24. Dugatkin L.A. (2005). "Mistakes and the evolution of copying". — Ethol. Ecol. Evol. Vol 17: 327-333. [Crossref]
25. Earley R.I., Dugatkin L.A. (2002). "Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 269: 943-952. [Crossref]
26. Ferkin M.H. (1988). "The effect of familiarity on social interactions in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus: a laboratory and field study". — Anim. Behav. Vol 36: 1816-1822. [Crossref]
27. Ferkin M.H. (2015). "The response of rodents to scent marks: four broad hypotheses". — Horm. Behav. Vol 68: 43-52. [Crossref]
28. Ferkin M.H., Hobbs N.J. (2014). "Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, respond differently to the scent marks of multiple male conspecifics". — Anim. Cogn. Vol 17: 715-722. [Crossref]
29. Ferkin M.H., Zucker I. (1991). "Seasonal control of odour preferences of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) by photoperiod and ovarian hormones". — J. Reprod. Fert. Vol 92: 433-441. [Crossref]
30. Ferkin M.H., Dunsavage J., Johnston R.E. (1999). "Meadow voles can discriminate between the top and bottom scent of an over-mark and prefer the top scent". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 113: 43-51. [Crossref]
31. Ferkin M.H., Pierce A.A., Sealand R.O., delBarco-Trillo J. (2005). "Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, can distinguish more over-marks from fewer over-marks". — Anim. Cogn. Vol 8: 182-189. [Crossref]
32. Ferkin M.H., Ferkin D.A., Ferkin B.D., Vlautin C.T. (2010). "Olfactory experience affects the response of meadow voles to the opposite-sex scent donor of mixed-sex over-marks". — Ethology Vol 116: 821-831. [Crossref]
33. Ferkin M.H., Hobbs N.J., Ferkin B.D., Ferkin A.C., Ferkin D.A. (2011). "Male and female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, respond differently to scent marks from the top- middle-, and bottom-scent donors of an over-mark". — Curr. Zool. Vol 57: 441-448. [Crossref]
34. Ferkin M.H., delBarco-Trillo J., Petrulis A. (2017). "Communication by chemical signals: physiological mechanisms, ontogeny and learning, function, evolution and cognition". — In: Hormones, brain, and behavior, 3rd edn. ( Pfaff D.W., Joëls M., eds). Elsevier Press, Kidlington, p.  285-327. [Crossref]
35. Galef B.G., White D.J. (1998). "Mate-copying in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica". — Anim. Behav. Vol 7: 220-232.
36. Giraldeau L.-A., Valone T.J., Tepleton J.J. (2002). "Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information". — Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 357: 1559-1566. [Crossref]
37. Hobbs N.J., Ferkin M.H. (2011). "Dietary protein content affects the responses of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, to over-marks". — Acta Ethol. Vol 14: 57-64. [Crossref]
38. Hurst J.L. (2005). "Scent marking and social communication". — In: Animal communication networks ( McGregor P.K., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.  219-243. [Crossref]
39. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. (2000). "Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits". — Biol. Rev. Cambr. Philos. Soc. Vol 75: 21-64. [Crossref]
40. Johnston R.E. (2009). "Individual odors and social communication, individual recognition, kin recognition, and scent over-marking". — Adv. Stud. Behav. Vol 30: 439-505.
41. Johnston R.E., Chiang G., Tung C. (1994). "The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters". — Anim. Behav. Vol 48: 323-330. [Crossref]
42. Johnston R.E., Munver R., Tung C. (1995). "Scent counter marks: selective memory for the top scent by golden hamsters". — Anim. Behav. Vol 49: 1435-1442. [Crossref]
43. Keller B.L. (1985). "Reproductive patterns". — Am. Soc. Mammal. Vol 8: 725-778.
44. Klemme I., Ylönen H. (2010). "Polyandry enhances offspring survival in an infanticidal species". — Biol. Lett. Vol 6: 24-26. [Crossref]
45. Madison D.M. (1980). "An integrated view of the social biology of Microtus pennsylvanicus". — Biologist Vol 62: 20-33.
46. Mautz B.S., Jennions M.D. (2011). "The effect of competitor presence and relative competitive ability on male mate choice". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 22: 769-775. [Crossref]
47. Meek L.R., Lee T.M. (1993). "Female meadow voles have a preferred mating pattern predicted by photoperiod, which influences fertility". — Physiol. Behav. Vol 54: 1201-1210. [Crossref]
48. Milligan S.R. (1982). "Induced ovulation in mammals". — In: Oxford reviews of reproductive biology, vol. 4 ( Finn C.A., ed.). Clarendon Press, London, p.  1-46.
49. Morand-Ferron J., Doligez B., Dall S.R.X., Reader S.M. (2010). "Social information use". — Encyclop. Anim. Behav. Vol 3: 242-250. [Crossref]
50. Nadeau J.H. (1985). "Ontogeny". — In: Biology of new world Microtus . ( Tamarin R.H., ed.). Am. soc. mammal. sp. publ., 8, p.  254-285.
51. Nordell S.E., Valone T.J. (1998). "Mate choice copying as public information". — Ecol. Lett. Vol 1: 74-76. [Crossref]
52. Parker G.A., Pizzari T. (2010). "Sperm competition and ejaculate economics". — Biol. Rev. Cambr. Philos. Soc. Vol 85: 897-934.
53. Parker G.A., Ball M.A., Stockley P., Gage M.J.G. (1996). "Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 263: 1291-1297. [Crossref]
54. Parker G.A., Ball M.A., Stockley P., Gage M.J.G. (1997). "Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. Vol 264: 1793-1802. [Crossref]
55. Price T.A., Lizé A., Marcell M., Bretman A. (2012). "Experience of mating rivals causes males to modulate sperm transfer in the fly Drosophila pseudoobscura". — J. Insect Physiol. Vol 58: 1669-1675. [Crossref]
56. Ramm S.A., Stockley P. (2014). "Sequential male mate choice under sperm competition risk". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 25: 660-667. [Crossref]
57. Sabau R.M., Ferkin M.H. (2013). "Food deprivation and restriction during late gestation affects the sexual behavior of postpartum female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus". — Ethology Vol 119: 29-38. [Crossref]
58. Sabau R.M., Ferkin M.H. (2014). "Maternal food restriction during lactation affects body weight and sexual behavior of male offspring in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus)". — Ethology Vol 120: 793-803. [Crossref]
59. Salo A.I., Dewsbury D.A. (1995). "Three experiments on mate choice in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 118: 37-47.
60. Schlupp I., Ryan M.J. (1997). "Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 8: 104-107. [Crossref]
61. Sheridan M., Tamarin R.H. (1988). "Space use, longevity, and reproductive success in meadow voles". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 22: 85-90. [Crossref]
62. Simmons L.W. (2005). "The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability". — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. Vol 36: 125-146. [Crossref]
63. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. (1995). The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn.W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
64. Stockley P., Preston B.T. (2004). "Sperm competition and diversity in rodent copulatory behaviour". — J. Evol. Biol. Vol 17: 1048-1057. [Crossref]
65. Taborsky B., Oliveira R.F. (2012). "Social competence: an evolutionary approach". — Trends Ecol. Evol. Vol 47: 679-688. [Crossref]
66. Valone T.J. (2007). "From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 62: 1-14. [Crossref]
67. Valone T.J., Templeton J.J. (2002). "Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon". — Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Vol 357: 1549-1557. [Crossref]
68. Vaughn A.A., Ferkin M.H. (2011). "The presence and number of male competitor’s scent marks and female reproductive state affect the response of male meadow voles to female conspecifics’ odours". — Behaviour Vol 148: 927-943. [Crossref]
69. Vaughn A.A., delBarco-Trillo J., Ferkin M.H. (2008). "Sperm investment in male meadow voles is affected by the condition of the nearby male conspecifics". — Behav. Ecol. Vol 19: 1159-1164. [Crossref]
70. Vaughn A.A., delBarco-Trillo J., Ferkin M.H. (2010). "Self-grooming by male meadow voles differs across copulation but is not affected by the risk and intensity of sperm competition". — Behaviour Vol 147: 259-274. [Crossref]
71. Wagner R.H., Danchin E. (2003). "Conspecific copying: a general mechanism of social aggregation". — Anim. Behav. Vol 65: 405-408. [Crossref]
72. White D. (2004). "Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions". — Learn. Behav. Vol 32: 105-113. [Crossref]
73. White D.J., Galef B.G. Jr. (1999). "Social effects on mate choice copying of male Japanese quail". — Anim. Behav. Vol 57: 1005-1012. [Crossref]
74. Witte K. (2006). "Learning and mate choice". — In: Fish cognition and behavior ( Brown C., Laland K., Krause J., eds). Blackwell, Oxford, p.  70-95.
75. Witte K., Ryan M.J. (2002). "Mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) in the wild". — Anim. Behav. Vol 63: 943-949. [Crossref]
76. Witte K., Kniel N., Kureck I.M. (2015). "Mate-choice copying: status quo and where to go". — Curr. Biol. Vol 61: 1073-1081.
77. Wolff J.O., Macdonald D.W. (2004). "Promiscuous females protect their offspring". — Trends Ecol. Evol. Vol 19: 127-134. [Crossref]
78. Woodward R.L. Jr., Bartos K., Ferkin M.H. (2000). "Meadow voles and prairie voles differ in their response to over-marks from opposite- and same-sex conspecifics". — Ethology Vol 106: 979-992. [Crossref]
79. Wyatt T.D. (2014). Pheromones and animal behavior: chemical signals and signatures. — Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Behaviour — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation