↓ Skip to main content

Female nursing partner choice in a population of wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Female nursing partner choice in a population of wild house mice (Mus musculus domesticus)
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12983-018-0251-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Harrison, Anna K. Lindholm, Akos Dobay, Olivia Halloran, Andri Manser, Barbara König

Abstract

Communal nursing in house mice is an example of cooperation where females pool litters in the same nest and indiscriminately nurse own and other offspring despite potential exploitation. The direct fitness benefits associated with communal nursing shown in laboratory studies suggest it to be a selected component of female house mice reproductive behaviour. However, past studies on communal nursing in free-living populations have debated whether it is a consequence of sharing the same nest or an active choice. Here using data from a long-term study of free-living, wild house mice we investigated individual nursing decisions and determined what factors influenced a female's decision to nurse communally. Females chose to nurse solitarily more often than expected by chance, but the likelihood of nursing solitarily decreased when females had more partners available. While finding no influence of pairwise relatedness on partner choice, we observed that females shared their social environment with genetically similar individuals, suggesting a female's home area consisted of related females, possibly facilitating the evolution of cooperation. Within such a home area females were more likely to nest communally when the general relatedness of her available options was relatively high. Females formed communal nests with females that were familiar through previous associations and had young pups of usually less than 5 days old. Our findings suggest that communal nursing was not a by-product of sharing the same nesting sites, but females choose communal nursing partners from a group of genetically similar females, and ultimately the decision may then depend on the pool of options available. Social partner choice proved to be an integrated part of cooperation among females, and might allow females to reduce the conflict over number of offspring in a communal nest and milk investment towards own and other offspring. We suggest that social partner choice may be a general mechanism to stabilize costly cooperation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 49%
Psychology 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,306,805
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#314
of 656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,551
of 331,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.