Dominance, body size and internal relatedness influence male reproductive success in eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus)
Emily J. Miller A C D , Mark D. B. Eldridge B , Desmond W. Cooper A and Catherine A. Herbert A CA School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia.
B Molecular Biology, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.
C Present address: Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: emily.miller@sydney.edu.au
Reproduction, Fertility and Development 22(3) 539-549 https://doi.org/10.1071/RD09061
Submitted: 17 March 2009 Accepted: 21 September 2009 Published: 15 February 2010
Abstract
Knowledge of the determinants of reproductive success is essential for understanding the adaptive significance of particular traits. The present study examined whether particular behavioural, morphological, physiological or genetic traits were correlated with male dominance and reproductive success using three semi-free-ranging captive populations (n = 98) of the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus). The morphological traits measured included bodyweight, head, forearm, tail, pes and leg length, forearm and bicep circumference, and testis size. Blood samples were collected to determine serum testosterone concentrations. All individuals were typed for 10 microsatellite loci and paternity determined for each pouch young. To determine the influence of relatedness and genetic diversity on male reproductive success, internal relatedness, standardised heterozygosity and mean d2 were calculated. Dominant males sired a significantly higher proportion of offspring than smaller, lower-ranked males and had higher testosterone concentrations. Males that sired offspring were significantly heavier and had larger body size. Sires were significantly more heterozygous and genetically dissimilar to breeding females than non-sires. Despite the wealth of knowledge on the social organisation of kangaroos, this is the first study to assign parentage and male reproductive success using molecular evidence.
Additional keywords: dominance hierarchy, genetic diversity, male–male competition, sire.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by an ARC Linkage Grant (LP0560344) and forms part of the Koala and Kangaroo Contraception Program. Special thanks to James Cook and Jan Nedved for field assistance, Celine Frère and David Warton for statistical advice, Waratah Park Earth Sanctuary, Australia Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary, Bill Amos and Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse for the IR macro, Emily Bolitho and Graeme Coulson, and Cameron Wood and Margaret Wilkinson at the Royal North Shore Hospital.
Acevedo-Whitehouse, K. , Gulland, F. , Greig, D. , and Amos, W. (2003). Inbreeding: disease susceptibility in California sea lions. Nature 422, 35.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Beacham, J. L. (2003). Models of dominance hierarchy formation: effects of prior experience and intrinsic traits. Behaviour 140, 1275–1303.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Charmantier, A. , and Sheldon, B. C. (2006). Testing genetic models of mate choice evolution in the wild. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 417–419.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989). Mammalian mating systems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 236, 339–372.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Clutton-Brock, T. H. , Green, D. , Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. , and Albon, S. D. (1988). Passing the buck: resource defence, lek breeding and mate choice in fallow deer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23, 281–296.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coulson, T. N. , Pemberton, J. M. , Albon, S. D. , Beaumont, M. , Marshall, T. C. , Slate, J. , Guinness, F. E. , and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1998). Microsatellites reveal heterosis in red deer. Proc. Biol. Sci. 265, 489–495.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Dewsbury, D. A. (1982). Dominance rank, copulatory behaviour, and differential reproduction. Q. Rev. Biol. 57, 135–159.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Emlen, S. T. , and Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Hamilton, W. D. , and Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218, 384–387.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Hill, G. J. E. (1982). Seasonal movement patterns of the eastern grey kangaroo in Southern Queensland. Aust. Wildl. Res. 9, 373–387.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hynes, E. F. , Rudd, C. D. , Temple-Smith, P. D. , Sofronidis, G. , Paris, D. , Shaw, G. , and Renfree, M. B. (2005). Mating sequence, dominance and paternity success in captive male tammar wallabies. Reproduction 130, 123–130.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Jarman, P. J. (1991). Social behaviour and organisation in the Macropodoidea. Adv. Stud. Behav. 20, 1–50.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jarman, P. J. , and Taylor, R. J. (1983). Ranging of eastern grey kangaroos and wallaroos on a New England pastoral property. Aust. Wildl. Res. 10, 33–38.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marvan, R. , Stevens, J. M. G. , Roeder, A. D. , Mazura, I. , Bruford, M. W. , and de Ruiter, J. R. (2006). Male dominance rank, mating and reproductive success in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). Folia Primatol. 77, 364–376.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Milner-Gulland, E. J. , and Mace, R. H. (1991). The impact of the ivory trade on the elephant population of the trade, as assessed by data from the trade. Biol. Conserv. 55, 215–229.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pusey, A. E. (1987). Sex-biased dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2, 295–299.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Oosterhout, C. , Hutchinson, W. F. , Wills, D. P. M. , and Shipley, P. (2004). MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS |
Williamson, P. , Fletcher, T. P. , and Renfree, M. B. (1990). Testicular development and maturation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–testicular axis in the male tammar, Macropus eugenii. J. Reprod. Fertil. 88, 549–557.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
Zenger, K. R. , and Cooper, D. W. (2001). Characterisation of 14 macropod microsatellite genetic markers. Anim. Genet. 32, 166–167.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
Zenger, K. R. , Eldridge, M. D. B. , Pope, L. C. , and Cooper, D. W. (2003). Characterisation and cross-species utility of microsatellite markers within kangaroos, wallabies and rat kangaroos (Macropodoidea: Marsupialia). Aust. J. Zool. 51, 587–596.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS |