Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Jul 7;271(1546):1385–1391. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2711

Sex-biased maternal investment in voles: importance of environmental conditions.

Esa Koskela 1, Otso Huitu 1, Minna Koivula 1, Erkki Korpimäki 1, Tapio Mappes 1
PMCID: PMC1691736  PMID: 15306337

Abstract

Adaptive bias in sex allocation is traditionally proposed to be related to the condition of mothers as well as to the unequal fitness values of produced sexes. A positive relationship between mother condition and investment into male offspring is often predicted. This relationship was also recently found to depend on environmental conditions. We studied these causalities experimentally using a design where winter food supply was manipulated in eight outdoor-enclosed populations of field voles Microtus agrestis. At the beginning of the breeding season in spring, food-supplemented mothers seemed to be in a similar condition, measured as body mass, head width, body condition index and parasite load (blood parasite Trypanosoma), to non-supplemented mothers. Food supplements affected neither the litter size, the reproductive effort of mothers, nor the litter sex ratios at birth. However, food supplementation significantly increased the birth size of male offspring and improved their condition, as indicated by reduced parasite loads (intestinal Eimeria). Interestingly, mothers in good body condition produced larger male offspring only when environmental conditions were improved by food supplements. Although the adaptiveness of variation in mammalian sex ratios is still questionable, our study indicates that mothers in good condition bias their investment towards male offspring, but only when environmental conditions are favourable.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Clutton-Brock T. H., Iason G. R. Sex ratio variation in mammals. Q Rev Biol. 1986 Sep;61(3):339–374. doi: 10.1086/415033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ergon T., Lambin X., Stenseth N. C. Life-history traits of voles in a fluctuating population respond to the immediate environment. Nature. 2001 Jun 28;411(6841):1043–1045. doi: 10.1038/35082553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fuller C. A. Population dynamics of two species of Eimeria (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): biotic and abiotic factors. J Parasitol. 1996 Apr;82(2):220–225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Klemola T., Koivula M., Korpimäki E., Norrdahl K. Experimental tests of predation and food hypotheses for population cycles of voles. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Feb 22;267(1441):351–356. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Krackow S. Potential mechanisms for sex ratio adjustment in mammals and birds. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1995 May;70(2):225–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1995.tb01066.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kruuk L. E., Clutton-Brock T. H., Albon S. D., Pemberton J. M., Guinness F. E. Population density affects sex ratio variation in red deer. Nature. 1999 Jun 3;399(6735):459–461. doi: 10.1038/20917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mappes T., Koskela E., Ylönen H. Reproductive costs and litter size in the bank vole. Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Jul 22;261(1360):19–24. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McClure P. A. Sex-Biased Litter Reduction in Food-Restricted Wood Rats (Neotoma floridana). Science. 1981 Mar 6;211(4486):1058–1060. doi: 10.1126/science.211.4486.1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Oksanen T. A., Jonsson P., Koskela E., Mappes T. Optimal allocation of reproductive effort: manipulation of offspring number and size in the bank vole. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 22;268(1467):661–666. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sheldon Ben C. Maternal dominance, maternal condition, and offspring sex ratio in ungulate mammals. Am Nat. 2004 Jan 14;163(1):40–54. doi: 10.1086/381003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Trivers R. L., Willard D. E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science. 1973 Jan 5;179(4068):90–92. doi: 10.1126/science.179.4068.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Williams G. C. The question of adaptive sex ratio in outcrossed vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):567–580. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Yun C. H., Lillehoj H. S., Lillehoj E. P. Intestinal immune responses to coccidiosis. Dev Comp Immunol. 2000 Mar-Apr;24(2-3):303–324. doi: 10.1016/s0145-305x(99)00080-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES