loading page

House mouse subspecies do differ in their social structure
  • +4
  • Ondřej Mikula,
  • Miloš Macholán ,
  • Ľudovít Ďureje,
  • Zuzana Hiadlovská,
  • Kristina Daniszová,
  • Kateřina Janotová,
  • Barbora Vošlajerová Bímová
Ondřej Mikula
Institute of Vertebrate Biology Czech Academy of Sciences

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Miloš Macholán
Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Czech Academy of Sciences
Author Profile
Ľudovít Ďureje
Institute of Vertebrate Biology, ASCR
Author Profile
Zuzana Hiadlovská
Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Czech Academy of Sciences
Author Profile
Kristina Daniszová
Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Czech Academy of Sciences
Author Profile
Kateřina Janotová
Institute of Vertebrate Biology Czech Academy of Sciences
Author Profile
Barbora Vošlajerová Bímová
Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics, Czech Academy of Sciences
Author Profile

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that population structure can have a substantial impact on evolutionary trajectories. In social animals, this structure is strongly influenced by relationships among the population members, so studies of differences in social structure between diverging populations or nascent species are of prime interest. Ideal models for such a study are two house mouse subspecies, Mus musculus musculus and M. m. domesticus, meeting in Europe along a secondary contact zone. Though the latter subspecies has usually been supposed to form tighter and more isolated social units than the former, the evidence is still inconclusive. Here, we carried out a series of radio-frequency identification experiments in semi-natural enclosures to gather large longitudinal datasets on individual mouse movements. The data were summarised in the form of uni- and multi-layer social networks. Within them, we could delimit and describe the social units (‘modules’). While the number of estimated units was similar in both subspecies, domesticus revealed a more ‘modular’ structure. This subspecies also showed more intramodular social interactions, higher spatial module separation, higher intramodular persistence of parent-offspring contacts, and lower multiple paternity, suggesting more effective control of dominant males over reproduction. We also demonstrate that long-lasting modules can be identified with basic reproductive units or demes. We thus provide the first robust evidence that the two subspecies differ in their social structure and dynamics of the structure formation.
11 Apr 2022Submitted to Ecology and Evolution
12 Apr 2022Submission Checks Completed
12 Apr 2022Assigned to Editor
13 Apr 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Sep 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 Oct 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
17 Oct 20221st Revision Received
18 Oct 2022Submission Checks Completed
18 Oct 2022Assigned to Editor
18 Oct 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
08 Dec 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
Dec 2022Published in Ecology and Evolution volume 12 issue 12. 10.1002/ece3.9683