Cited by 58Animal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

Manipulation of olfactory signaling and mate choice for conservation breeding: A case study of harvest mice

Open access
ROBERTS, S.C., GOSLING, L.M.·2004·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Mate choice by females can introduce difficulties to captive breeding programs because there may be a conflict between the conservation manager's choice of mate (based on random allocation or maximizing heterogeneity) and the females' own preferences, often resulting in incompatibility and aggression. Similar effects are caused by inappropriate social contexts at the time of pairing. We manipulated the social experience of male and female harvest mice ( Micromys minutus ) to investigate whether we could enhance compatibility between randomly allocated mates by altering female preferences. In one experiment, we used a choice test to identify female preferences between two males and then varied the competitive context of unpreferred males by transferring competitor's scent marks into their cages. The manipulation caused them to increase their investment in a form of olfactory signaling (scent marking), which female rodents use as an indicator of male quality when choosing mates. The manipulation increased their attractiveness relative to the initially preferred male when the choice test was repeated. In a second experiment, we tested the effect of females' familiarity with the odor of males by transfer of male scent marks to female cages. Females preferred familiar males in choice tests and were less aggressive toward them when pairs were introduced than females paired with unfamiliar males. This kind of approach can influence mate choice, and transferring scent marks between c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00514.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In practical experiments, several species experienced greater pair and reproductive success when paired with males they demonstrated a scent preference for.

    “In practical experiments using this method several species, including stripe-faced dunnart [23], cheetah [47], and harvest mouse (Micromys minutus [48]), experienced greater pair and reproductive success when paired with the males they demonstrated a scent preference for.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ROBERTS, S. C., & GOSLING, L. M.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03-19
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
548-556
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2165780033
Cited by
58
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Leverhulme Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
mate choice, olfactory signaling, scent marking, conservation breeding, captive breeding, harvest mice, Micromys minutus, female preference, social experience, male quality, aggression, familiarity, choice tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review