Внутрипопуляционная изменчивость выраженности полового диморфизма массы тела у водяной полевки – Arvicola amphibius (Linnaeus, 1758) (Arvicolinae, Rodentia)

Изучение внутрипопуляционной изменчивости полового диморфизма важно для понимания роли морфологических различий между самцами и самками в адаптации животных разного пола к динамичным условиям существования. На основании 28-летних данных, полученных при изучении морфофизиологических и этологических характеристик водяных полевок из популяции с циклической динамикой численности, установлена связь полового диморфизма массы тела перезимовавших особей и сеголеток с фазой популяционного цикла и месяцем сезона размножения. У сеголеток половые различия массы тела наиболее выражены в фазу пика численности, а у перезимовавших – в фазу спада. В фазу депрессии статистически значимые половые различия массы тела отсутствуют. У перезимовавших животных выраженность полового диморфизма наиболее высока в начале сезона размножения, апреле, а у сеголеток – не зависит от календарных сроков сезона размножения. На основании полученных ранее сведений о закономерных изменениях пространственно-этологической структуры популяции на разных фазах популяционного цикла и ее тесной связи с сезонным ритмом репродуктивных процессов сделан вывод, что усиление выраженности полового диморфизма массы тела у животных, родившихся в фазу пика численности, когда конкуренция между самцами за территорию и самок резко обостряется, может быть связано с репродуктивным преимуществом более крупных перезимовавших самцов.

1. Breed W. G., Taylor J. Body mass, testes mass, and sperm size in Murine rodents. Journal of Mammalogy, 2000, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081%3C0758:BMTMAS%3E2.3.CO;2

2. Bronson F. H. Mammalian reproductive strategies: Genes, photoperiod and latitude. Reproduction Nutrition Développement, 1988, vol. 28, pp. 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:19880301

3. Bünger L., Lewis R. M., Rothschild M. F., Blasco A., Renne U., Simm G. Relationships between quantitative and reproductive fitness traits in animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005, vol. 360, no. 1459, pp. 1489–1502. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1679

4. Evsikov V. I. Genetic and evolutionary aspects of the homeostasis of mammalian fecundity (a case study of mink). Genetika, 1987, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 988–1002 (in Russian).

5. Evsikov V. I., Skorova S. V., Nazarova G. G., Moshkin M. P. The influence of photo-period on the growth and reproductive function of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris L.). Ekologiya, 1989, no. 6, pp. 58–63 (in Russian).

6. Evsikov V. I., Potapov M. A., Muzyka V. Y. Population ecology of water vole (Arvicola terrestris L.) in Western Siberia. II. Spatial ethological structure of populations. Siberian Journal of Ecology, 1999, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69–77 (in Russian).

7. Evsikov V. I., Gerlinskaja L. A., Moshkin M. P., Muzyka V. Ju., Nazarova G. G., Ovchinnikova L. E., Potapov M. A., Rogov V. G. Genetic-physiological basis for the population homeostasis. In: The Water Vole: Mode of the Species. Ser.: Species of the Fauna of Russia and Contiguous Countries. Moscow, Nauka, 2001, pp. 386–412 (in Russian).

8. Evsikov V. I., Nazarova G. G., Potapov M. A. Sexual selection and the role of intrafamily relations in the realization of the adaptive potential in mammals. Biology Bulletin Reviews, 2015, vol. 5, iss. 2, pp. 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086415020048

9. Fairbairn D. J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 1997, vol. 28, pp. 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659

10. Falconer D. S. The genetics of litter size in mice. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 1960, vol. 56, suppl. 1, pp. 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1030560414

11. Frafjord K. No optimal weight to survive the winter in a northern island population of water voles Arvicola amphibious. American Journal of BioScience, 2024. vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 80–89. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajbio.20241203.11

12. Hamilton G. D., Bronson F. H. Food restriction and reproductive development in wild house mice. Biology of Reproduction, 1985, vol. 32, iss. 4, pp. 773–778. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod32.4.773

13. Hedrick A. V., Temeles E. J. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: Hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1989, vol. 4, iss. 5, pp. 136–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90212-7

14. Hurst J. L. Female recognition and assessment of males through scent. Behavioural Brain Research, 2009, vol. 200, iss. 2, pp. 295 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.12.020

15. Issac J. L. Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Mammal Review, 2005, vol. 35, pp. 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00045.x

16. Ivanter E. V. Study of the water vole (Arvicola amphibius) at the northwestern boundary of its range. Biology Bulletin, 2023, vol. 50, iss. 2, pp. 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1134/S106235902270008X Korkman N. Selection with regard to the sex difference of body weight in mice. Hereditas, 1957, vol. 43, pp. 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1957.tb03467.x

17. Lindenfors P., Gittleman J. L., Jones K. E. Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. In: Fairbairn D. J., Blanckenhorn W. U., Székely T., eds. Sex, Size, and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.003.0003

18. Nazarova G. G., Evsikov V. I. The evolutionary ecology of animal fertility: The fitness of progeny is determined by their prenatal development (according to the example of the European water vole, Arvicola terrestris L.). Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research, 2012, vol. 2, iss. 1, pp. 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079059712010121

19. Nazarova G. G., Proskurnyak L. P. Protein content in urine of male and female water vole (Arvicola amphibius) at the period of spring growth and sexual maturation. Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, 2013, vol. 49, iss. 3, pp. 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0022093013030110

20. Nazarova G. G., Potapov M. A., Potapova O. F., Novikov E. A. Relations between sexual maturation of overwintered Arvicola amphibius (Rodentia, Arvicolinae) females and their physical condition. Biology Bulletin, 2022, vol. 49, iss. 8, pp. 1232–1236. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359022080131

21. Nazarova G. G., Proskurnjak L. P., Yuzik E. I. Factors affecting the urine-marking activity in water voles Arvicola amphibius (Rodentia, Cricetidae). Russian Journal of Theriology, 2024, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 155–161. https://doi.org/10.15298/rusjtheriol.23.2.05

22. O'Keane J. C., Brien T. G., Hooper A. C., Graham A. Testicular activity in mice selected for increased body weight. Andrologia, 1986, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.1986.tb01760.x

23. Pljusnin Yu. M. Ethological Structure of the Water Vole Population at Different Phases of Population Dynamics. Diss. Cand. Sci. (Biol.). Novosibirsk, 1985. 235 p (in Russian).

24. Poissenot K., Chorfa A., Moussu C., Trouillet A. C., Brachet M., Chesneau D., Chemineau P., Ramadier E., Pinot A., Benoit E., Lattard V., Dardente H., Drevet J., Saez F., Keller M. Photoperiod is involved in the regulation of seasonal breeding in male water voles (Arvicola terrestris). Journal of Experimental Biology, 2021, vol. 224, no. 19, art. jeb242792. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.242792

25. Poissenot K., Moussu C., Brachet M., Chesneau D., Chemineau P., Lainé A. L., Migaud M., Charbonnel N., Keller M. Population density does not affect seasonal regulation of reproductive

26. physiology in male water voles. Biology Letters, 2023, vol. 19, iss. 2, art. 20220441. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0441

27. Potapov M. A., Evsikov V. I. Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the prospects for its development in light of the evolutionary ideas of D. K. Belyaev. Vestnik VOGiS, 2009, vol. 13, no 2, pp. 390–400.

28. Potapov M. A., Evsikov V. I. Evolutionary ecology of animal fertility: Factors of epigamous sexual selection in rodents. Vavilovskij zhurnal genetiki i selektsii, 2011, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1134/S207905971104006X

29. Ranta E., Laurila A., Elmberg J. Reinventing the wheel: Analysis of sexual dimorphism in body size. Oikos, 1994, vol. 71, pp. 313–321.

30. Relethford J. H., Hodges D. C. A statistical test for differences in sexual dimorphism between populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1985, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 55–61.

31. Rogov V. G. Population Dynamics and Demographic Parameters of the Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris L.) in the Subtaiga Zone of Western Siberia. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Biol.). Novosibirsk, 1999. 19 p. (in Russian).

32. Rogov V. G., Potapov M. A., Evsikov V. I. Sex structure of the water vole Arvicola terrestris (Rodentia, Cricetidae) population in Western Siberia. Zoologicheskii zhurnal, 1999, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 979–986.

33. Schulte-Hostedde A. I., Millar J. S., Hickling G. J. Sexual dimorphism in body composition of small mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2001, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 1016–1020. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-076

34. The Water Vole: Mode of the Species. Ser.: Species of the Fauna of Russia and Contiguous Countries. Moscow, Nauka, 2001. 526 p. (in Russian).

35. Weckerly F. W. Sexual-size dimorphism: Influence of mass and mating systems in the most dimorphic mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 1998, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 33–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1382840

36. Winkler L., Freckleton R. P., Székely T., Janicke T. Pre-copulatory sexual selection predicts sexual size dimorphism: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Ecology Letters, 2024, vol. 27, iss. 9, art. e14515. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14515

37. Yavuz G., Ercüment Ç., Teoman K. Investigations on the ecology of Eurasian water vole, Arvicola amphibius (Rodentia: Mammalia) in Ankara Province. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 2013, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1599–1605.