Data from: Parentage of 920 gray-sided voles (Myodes rufocanus) born in a 3-ha outdoor enclosure between September 1992 and May 1994
Data files
Nov 27, 2023 version files 665.70 KB
-
capture_data.csv
424.58 KB
-
Figure1.png
153.65 KB
-
README.md
7.02 KB
-
vole_data.csv
80.45 KB
Abstract
This dataset provides the estimated birth location, sex, assigned parents, and estimated birth and death dates of 920 gray-sided voles (Myodes rufocanus) born in a 3-ha outdoor enclosure in Sapporo, Japan between September 1992 and May 1994, as well as capture–recapture data for 30 trapping sessions. We introduced 22 males and 25 females from several natural populations into the enclosure in late September 1992. Individuals in the enclosure were captured using live traps every two weeks until late April 1994, except for periods with deep snow cover. The location, body weight, and reproductive status of each vole were monitored throughout the study period. Complementary trapping was performed within the home ranges of breeding females to mark juveniles as early as possible. Upon first capture, each individual was marked by toe clipping for subsequent identification, and the cut toes were used as DNA samples. For each individual, candidate parents were selected based on female reproduction history and capture points, and then parentage was determined using genotypes at 3–5 microsatellite loci with the CERVUS program. The results show that individuals born in the enclosure (N = 920) were derived from 215 litters, among which multiple males sired 51 litters. We used this database to elucidate the promiscuous mating system and inbreeding-avoidance mechanism of the gray-sided vole and to develop a new method for estimating the frequency of multiple-male mating. This dataset will contribute to future behavioral ecological research on this and other small mammal species.
README: Parentage of 920 gray-sided voles (Myodes rufocanus) born in a 3-ha outdoor enclosure between September 1992 and May 1994
This dataset was compiled as the result of an investigation of the mating system of gray-sided voles (Myodes rufocanus) within a 3-ha outdoor enclosure from September 1992 to May 1994. The data (vole_data.csv) included information on estimated birth locations, assigned parents, and estimated birth and death dates for 920 individuals born within the enclosure. They were derived from 215 litters, among which 51 litters had multiple paternity.
It was also accompanied with capture and recapture data of all individuals for 30 trapping sessions (capture_data.csv), which were conducted for 3 days every 2 weeks, except for periods with deep snow cover, using live traps set at 300 trap stations in a 20 × 15-grid pattern with 10-m spacing (Figure_1.png). Traps were set at 0900 h and checked at 1400 h and 2000 h every day; all traps were closed after the check at 2000 h. The location of capture, body weight, and reproductive status of each vole were recorded throughout the study period.
Details of the methods used to assign parents were provided in our previous publications (Ishibashi & Saitoh, 2008a, 2008b; Ishibashi et al., 1998; Ishibashi et al., 1995). Because a few initial errors in parentage have been corrected in this database, the descriptions provided in Ishibashi and Saitoh (2008b) are the most useful for understanding the procedure used to establish parentage.
Header Information
For "vole_data.csv"
- IDvole: Identification number (ID) of each vole, assigned by toe clipping. Prefixes “F” and “M” denote females and males, respectively.
- DNA#: ID of each DNA sample, originating from the sampling tube number. Missing numbers indicate that tubes with these numbers were not used in sample collection, with the exception of DNA# 901 (IDvole: M23032), which belonged to an intruder from outside the enclosure and was excluded from the dataset.
- Sex: 0: Female; 1: Male.
- Natalsite_X and Natalsite_Y: Estimated activity center (a weighted average of capture points) for the mother at or around the offspring birth date. For example, the natal site of IDvole F11014 (DNA# 401) was located at the X, Y coordinate code 7.8-6.8, based on a 20 × 15 trap-station grid arrangement (Figure_1.png).
- IDmother: Identity of the assigned mother. Founders introduced into the enclosure were assigned numbers lower than 400.
- IDfather: Identity of the assigned father. Founders introduced into the enclosure were assigned numbers lower than 400.
- Datecopu: Estimated copulation date (Y/M/D), which was assumed to be 19 days before the estimated birth date.
- Datebirth: Estimated birth date (Y/M/D).
- Datedeath: The day after the last capture, selected for convenience (Y/M/D).
- Lifespan: Duration (days) between the estimated birth and death dates.
- IDrepro: Tentative litter serial number (range: 1–215).
- Spmp: 0: Offspring from a single-paternity litter; 1: Offspring from a multiple-paternity litter.
- IDmp: Tentative serial number for a multiple-paternity litter (range: 1–51). Offspring from a single-paternity litter were assigned IDmp = 0.
- Remarks: Notable information on the individual.
For "capture_data.csv"
- Serial#: Tentative serial number assigned for convenience (range: 1–4,166).
- IDsession: Number of the trapping session, where 0 indicates the introduction of founders (range: 0–30).
- Date: Date (Y/M/D) of the first day of a 3-day trapping session, or of founder introduction (for IDsession = 0). Associated with IDsession numbers 0–30.
- IDvole: ID of each vole, assigned by toe clipping.
- DNA#: ID of each DNA sample, originating from the sampling tube number.
- Sex: 0: Female; 1: Male.
- Datebirth: Estimated birth date (Y/M/D).
- Age: Age (days).
- BW: Body weight (g).
- Repro1: Diagnosis of reproductive state #1. In females, determined by the presence (3), unclear status (2), or absence (1) of the vaginal opening. In males, determined by the presence (3), unclear status (2), or absence (1) of testicular drop.
- Repro2: Diagnosis of reproductive state #2. In females, classified as pregnant (3), unclear (2), or not pregnant (1).
- Repro3: Diagnosis of reproductive state #3. In females, classified as lactating (3), unclear (2), or not lactating (1).
- Site1: Capture point on the afternoon of the first day of trapping. For example, Site1 = 215 indicates that the vole was captured at a trap set at point 02-15 on the afternoon of the first day.
- Site2: Capture point on the night of the first day.
- Site3: Capture point on the afternoon of the second day.
- Site4: Capture point on the night of the second day.
- Site5: Capture point on the afternoon of the third day.
- Site6: Capture point on the night of the third day.
- Site7, Site8, and Site9: Second or third capture point during a round of trap checks. Voles often entered a trap just after release.
- CapNo: Number of captures during a trapping session.
- ActCent_X and ActCent_Y: Estimated coordinates of the activity center during a trapping session.
- HRL: Home range length, determined as the largest geographical distance between two capture points.
- Remarks: Notable information on the individual.
Figure Caption
Figure_1.png
Diagram of the experimental enclosure. Dots indicate trap stations located at 10-m intervals in the X and Y directions (N = 300). Dotted line indicates an old forest path. The undergrowth consisted of two bamboo species, Sasa senanensis (no shading) and S. kurilensis (irregular shading). An open area at the center of the enclosure was created by cutting bamboos (rectangular shaded area). The positions of four trap stations (01-01, 01-15, 20-01, and 20-15) are indicated as reference points. Asterisk indicates point 7.8-6.8.
References
- Ishibashi, Y., & Saitoh, T. (2008a). Effect of local density of males on the occurrence of multimale mating in the gray-sided vole (Myodes rufocanus). Journal of Mammalogy, 89, 388–397. doi:10.1644/07-MAMM-A-036.1
- Ishibashi, Y., & Saitoh, T. (2008b). Role of male-biased dispersal in inbreeding avoidance in the grey-sided vole (Myodes rufocanus). Molecular Ecology, 17, 4887–4896. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03969.x
- Ishibashi, Y., Saitoh, T., Abe, S., & Yoshida, M. C. (1998). Kin-related social organization in a winter population of the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus. Researches on Population Ecology, 40, 51–59. doi:10.1007/BF02765221
- Ishibashi, Y., Saitoh, T., Abe, S., & Yoshida, M. C. (1995). Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the grey red-backed vole Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae. Molecular Ecology, 4, 127–128. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.1995.tb00200.x
Methods
On 29 September 1992, 47 individuals (22 males and 25 females) from seven natural gray-sided vole populations were introduced into a 3-ha (200 m × 150 m) outdoor enclosure established in a secondary forest in Sapporo, Japan (42°59’03”N 141°23’14”E; Figure 1). These founders were chosen to maximize heterozygosity at three microsatellite loci. Until 27 April 1994, we conducted 3-day capture–mark–recapture surveys every two weeks using live traps set at 300 trap stations in a 20 × 15-grid pattern with 10-m spacing, except during periods of deep snow cover. Traps were set at 0900 h and checked at 1400 h and 2000 h every day; all traps were closed after the check at 2000 h. Through these surveys, we continuously monitored the location, weight, and reproductive status of each individual in the enclosure. Complementary trapping was also performed within the home ranges of breeding females to mark juveniles as early as possible (~20 days after birth). On first capture, each individual was marked by toe clipping for subsequent identification, and the clipped toes were used as DNA samples. For all individuals born within the enclosure, both parents were determined based on female reproduction history (i.e., timing of pregnancy and lactation), home range location, and genotypes at 3–5 microsatellite loci. After identifying parents, we comprehensively estimated dates of birth for all litters based on female reproduction history, the palpation of pregnant females on capture, and first capture dates and weights of juveniles. The day after the final capture was designated the estimated death date, unless the exact date of death was known. The potential predators within the enclosure included snakes (Elaphe spp.), Ural owls (Strix urelensis), sables (Martes zibellina), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and cats (Felis catus).
Parentage was genetically established for all captured voles, except for one immigrant and two litters derived from sisters with identical genotypes at five microsatellite loci. For these two litters, the mothers of the offspring (N = 8) were determined based on their weights and trapping locations at first capture. The male was considered an intruder from outside the enclosure because it had unique microsatellite allele combinations compared with all possible candidate mothers. No mismatch alleles were observed among all combinations of assigned parents and offspring (N = 920). The first and last litters from which juveniles were successfully weaned during the study period were estimated to have been produced on 19 October 1992 and 15 October 1993, respectively. Individuals born within the enclosure (N = 920) were derived from 215 litters, among which 51 litters had multiple paternity. The male intruder (M23032/DNA# 901) was excluded from the parentage estimation dataset (vole_data.csv) because it did not sire any offspring in the enclosure.
Our paternity estimation results were verified using the CERVUS v3.0 program (Kalinowski et al., 2007). The CERVUS analysis supported our paternity assignment for almost all offspring, i.e., the assigned father had the highest score among all candidates. However, in 2.7% of all offspring (25/920), the males assigned as fathers were found to have positive but lower scores according to CERVUS, indicating that they were not the most likely fathers for these offspring. For the 25 inconsistent cases, an additional genotyping of five to six microsatellite loci was performed. The results revealed that in 23 of these cases, the most likely father, as designated by CERVUS, showed allele mismatches with the offspring, therefore confirming 99.8% (918/920) of our initial paternity estimates were correct. However, in both of the remaining cases, the offspring showed allele mismatches with the previously assigned fathers. Consequently, we adopted the CERVUS analysis results for these two offspring, which showed no mismatched alleles at any of the 10 loci examined.
Reference
Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L., & Marshall, T. C. (2007). Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology, 16, 1099–1106. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x