{"title":"树栖啮齿类动物的哺乳动物数量和产仔数量符合二分之一法则。","authors":"Anežka Holcová Gazárková, Peter Adamík","doi":"10.1002/ecy.70195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lactation is a defining mammal trait. Mammae numbers vary across orders, from 2 in humans to 29 in tenrecs (Hayssen et al., <span>1992</span>). Why is there such a great variation of mammae counts across different taxa? This question attracted the attention of many scholars since Aristotle, who stated, “The animals that have large litters have their mammae upon the abdomen. Why is this? They have numerous young to feed, and so they need numerous mammae” (Aristotle, <span>1902</span>).</p><p>Comparative studies have shown that mammae numbers coevolve with litter size. In general, litter size positively covaries with mammae count, that is, species with large litters nourish their sucklings from more nipples (Pearl, <span>1913a</span>). Gilbert (<span>1986</span>) coined this relationship as a “one-half rule”: the average litter size in a given species is usually one-half of the available mammae. Thus, there are typically two nipples or teats per one pup. Across taxa, the mammae number explains more of the variation in litter size than any other species-level traits like body mass, diet, gestation length, or geography (Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). This indicates that mammae numbers might represent a constraint on fecundity across mammals.</p><p>Surprisingly, almost no attempts have been made to assess whether the one-half rule also applies within a species. Earlier researchers even directly excluded such possibility, claiming, “There seems no reason whatever to suppose that natural selection would tend to produce a correlation between the number of mammae in the mother and the size of her litters within a race” (Harris, <span>1916</span>). More recently, Diamond (<span>1987</span>) considered it a “constant species characteristic,” and Gilbert (<span>1986</span>) claimed that “with few exceptions, mammary number in rodents is a species-typical invariant trait.” Even if some species were found with variable mammae counts, Gilbert excluded those species from his seminal study. Traditionally, only studies on domesticated animals paid attention to the issue of intraspecific variability in mammae numbers and litter size, with often inconclusive results (Bell, <span>1912</span>; Kim et al., <span>2005</span>; Korhonen, <span>1992</span>; Parker & Bullard, <span>1913</span>; Pearl, <span>1913b</span>). Only one study on a wild mammal, the Naked-mole Rat (<i>Heterocephalus glaber</i>), assessed whether the one-half rule holds within a species but did not find support for it (Sherman et al., <span>1999</span>).</p><p>The Edible Dormouse (<i>Glis glis</i>, Gliridae) is a small, nocturnal, arboreal rodent that inhabits deciduous woodlands across Europe. Earlier studies found variable numbers (8 to 14) of mammae within and between populations (Kryštufek, <span>2004</span>, <span>2010</span>; Naderi et al., <span>2014</span>; Figure 1a). It is a typical tree cavity-dwelling species that readily accepts nest boxes as surrogates of natural tree hollows (Figure 1b). This acceptance of nest boxes enabled us to conduct a detailed longitudinal study of individually marked females over their lifespans. Between 2013 and 2015, we followed in detail every gestating female at our long-term field site near Dlouhá Loučka (49°49′ N, 17°12′ E) in the NE Czech Republic (Adamík & Král, <span>2023</span>). Each dormouse was individually marked with a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, and we measured body mass and tibia length and counted the number of active mammae and litter size (Kukalová et al., <span>2013</span>). Reproduction in the Edible Dormouse is tightly linked with the masting pattern in trees like European beech (Lebl et al., <span>2011</span>; Pilastro et al., <span>2003</span>). For this reason, we assessed the proportion of available masting beech trees around each breeding nest box. We considered only those litters when we checked the females right after the parturition (<i>n</i> = 145 litters, Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2025</span> data on Zenodo). We excluded 4 litters with birth dates after September 1 as they likely indicate second or replacement litters, 5 litters when the pups were older than 14 days, and the females brought them into the nest box from another cavity, and 18 litters with communal nests (for details on daily routines of fieldwork see Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2016</span>). In the following years (2017–2022), we performed a less intensive field survey where we recorded nipple counts only in those lactating females that had been recorded before, and we could track their breeding performance over their lifespan (<i>n</i> = 112 litters). This second dataset assessed whether nipple count is a fixed character over the female's lifespan (Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2025</span> data on Zenodo). By mammae number in this study we mean mammae with active milk production. Anatomical mammae counts would require sacrificing the study animals.</p><p>The number of active (i.e., lactating) mammae ranged from 2 to 12 (mean ± SD: 10.19 ± 1.32, <i>n</i> = 145, Figure 2), and the litter size from one to 11 pups (6.81 ± 1.58, <i>n</i> = 145, Figure 2). Mammae number positively and significantly predicted litter size; linear regression: intercept ± SE 1.63 ± 0.93, <i>b</i> = 0.51 ± 0.09, <i>t</i><sub>(143)</sub> = 5.6, <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.18. This relationship was consistent even after controlling for the positive but nonsignificant effects of female body size and availability of masting trees within the territory (Appendix S1: Figures S1). In addition, we evaluated whether females had the same number of active mammae over their lifespans. We found moderate repeatability of this trait (intra-class correlation 0.29, 95% CI: 0.07–0.51). At the population level, we did not observe a change in mammae number between the first and subsequent breeding attempts (Appendix S1: Figure S3, mean difference in mammae number between first and second litters = −0.087, <i>n</i> = 46 females). Overall, in 27 cases, the females had the same mammae number between the first and second breedings; in six cases, we observed an increase by one; in two cases, an increase by two; in eight cases, it decreased by one; and three times, a decrease by two nipples (Figure 3).</p><p>Our data show an interesting fit to the one-half rule that was initially coined for interspecific comparisons (Gilbert, <span>1986</span>; Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). Litter size in dormouse females increases by one pup per additional pair of nipples. Comparative studies showed that the mammae/litter size relationships are universally positive, but the steepness of the slopes varies across mammal clades. For example, marsupials and carnivores have steeper slopes than Eulipotyphla (Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). Even within rodent families, the steepness of the slopes differs, with the highest being among terrestrial squirrels (Gilbert, <span>1986</span>). As we mentioned earlier, the numbers of mammae are frequently considered an invariant species trait. However, several studies reported mammae count variability between populations in a range of species (e.g., Cockburn et al., <span>1983</span>; Kryštufek, <span>2004</span>; Ward, <span>1998</span>). At the intraspecific level, only one field study evaluated the one-half rule. Sherman et al. (<span>1999</span>) did not find support for the rule in both captive and wild Naked-mole Rats. However, this species is at its extreme, having unusually high mammae numbers relative to the litter size. In contrast, this issue attracted considerable attention in animal husbandry, but with mixed results (e.g., Bell, <span>1912</span>; Kim et al., <span>2005</span>; Korhonen, <span>1992</span>; Parker & Bullard, <span>1913</span>; Pearl, <span>1913b</span>). For economic reasons, many domesticated lines of mammals have been selected for high offspring productivity, where mammae numbers equal litter size. Therefore, in captive breeds that underwent selection for productivity, we might not observe the relationship of mammae number to litter size. However, captive breeds have the potential for exploring the genetic mechanisms of this rule.</p><p>We also show a remarkable variability in the number of active nipples within females' lifespans. Almost one-half of the females had different numbers of active nipples in subsequent breeding events. Surprisingly, this is an unexplored area. For example, in the Naked-mole Rat, only 6% of females changed mammary numbers over an individual's lifetime (Sherman et al., <span>1999</span>). We suggest that more attention be paid to the variability within species in mammae numbers. Possibly, in some species, this trait might have been overlooked, and instead of having a constant mammae count, the females flexibly activate mammae relative to their actual litter size. The meaning of the term mammae numbers needs to be clarified in each study. The number of mammae per species can be counted anatomically (usually on dead animals), ignoring the lactation status, or it can mean the number of nipples/teats used for active milk production (as in this study). We suggest the second is biologically meaningful because it shows the caring capacity of the female relative to her litter size. In addition, there is a solid piece of evidence that in some species the pups show high fidelity to particular mammae (Skok, <span>2018</span>). Species with mammae clinging have more pups per mamma than the non-clinging ones (Gilbert, <span>1995</span>).</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>Permits to handle the dormice were issued by the Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region (KÚOK 31204/2011, KUOK 61548/2017).</p>","PeriodicalId":11484,"journal":{"name":"Ecology","volume":"106 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12441658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mammae numbers and litter sizes in an arboreal rodent fit the one-half rule\",\"authors\":\"Anežka Holcová Gazárková, Peter Adamík\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ecy.70195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Lactation is a defining mammal trait. Mammae numbers vary across orders, from 2 in humans to 29 in tenrecs (Hayssen et al., <span>1992</span>). Why is there such a great variation of mammae counts across different taxa? This question attracted the attention of many scholars since Aristotle, who stated, “The animals that have large litters have their mammae upon the abdomen. Why is this? They have numerous young to feed, and so they need numerous mammae” (Aristotle, <span>1902</span>).</p><p>Comparative studies have shown that mammae numbers coevolve with litter size. In general, litter size positively covaries with mammae count, that is, species with large litters nourish their sucklings from more nipples (Pearl, <span>1913a</span>). Gilbert (<span>1986</span>) coined this relationship as a “one-half rule”: the average litter size in a given species is usually one-half of the available mammae. Thus, there are typically two nipples or teats per one pup. Across taxa, the mammae number explains more of the variation in litter size than any other species-level traits like body mass, diet, gestation length, or geography (Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). This indicates that mammae numbers might represent a constraint on fecundity across mammals.</p><p>Surprisingly, almost no attempts have been made to assess whether the one-half rule also applies within a species. Earlier researchers even directly excluded such possibility, claiming, “There seems no reason whatever to suppose that natural selection would tend to produce a correlation between the number of mammae in the mother and the size of her litters within a race” (Harris, <span>1916</span>). More recently, Diamond (<span>1987</span>) considered it a “constant species characteristic,” and Gilbert (<span>1986</span>) claimed that “with few exceptions, mammary number in rodents is a species-typical invariant trait.” Even if some species were found with variable mammae counts, Gilbert excluded those species from his seminal study. Traditionally, only studies on domesticated animals paid attention to the issue of intraspecific variability in mammae numbers and litter size, with often inconclusive results (Bell, <span>1912</span>; Kim et al., <span>2005</span>; Korhonen, <span>1992</span>; Parker & Bullard, <span>1913</span>; Pearl, <span>1913b</span>). Only one study on a wild mammal, the Naked-mole Rat (<i>Heterocephalus glaber</i>), assessed whether the one-half rule holds within a species but did not find support for it (Sherman et al., <span>1999</span>).</p><p>The Edible Dormouse (<i>Glis glis</i>, Gliridae) is a small, nocturnal, arboreal rodent that inhabits deciduous woodlands across Europe. Earlier studies found variable numbers (8 to 14) of mammae within and between populations (Kryštufek, <span>2004</span>, <span>2010</span>; Naderi et al., <span>2014</span>; Figure 1a). It is a typical tree cavity-dwelling species that readily accepts nest boxes as surrogates of natural tree hollows (Figure 1b). This acceptance of nest boxes enabled us to conduct a detailed longitudinal study of individually marked females over their lifespans. Between 2013 and 2015, we followed in detail every gestating female at our long-term field site near Dlouhá Loučka (49°49′ N, 17°12′ E) in the NE Czech Republic (Adamík & Král, <span>2023</span>). Each dormouse was individually marked with a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, and we measured body mass and tibia length and counted the number of active mammae and litter size (Kukalová et al., <span>2013</span>). Reproduction in the Edible Dormouse is tightly linked with the masting pattern in trees like European beech (Lebl et al., <span>2011</span>; Pilastro et al., <span>2003</span>). For this reason, we assessed the proportion of available masting beech trees around each breeding nest box. We considered only those litters when we checked the females right after the parturition (<i>n</i> = 145 litters, Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2025</span> data on Zenodo). We excluded 4 litters with birth dates after September 1 as they likely indicate second or replacement litters, 5 litters when the pups were older than 14 days, and the females brought them into the nest box from another cavity, and 18 litters with communal nests (for details on daily routines of fieldwork see Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2016</span>). In the following years (2017–2022), we performed a less intensive field survey where we recorded nipple counts only in those lactating females that had been recorded before, and we could track their breeding performance over their lifespan (<i>n</i> = 112 litters). This second dataset assessed whether nipple count is a fixed character over the female's lifespan (Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, <span>2025</span> data on Zenodo). By mammae number in this study we mean mammae with active milk production. Anatomical mammae counts would require sacrificing the study animals.</p><p>The number of active (i.e., lactating) mammae ranged from 2 to 12 (mean ± SD: 10.19 ± 1.32, <i>n</i> = 145, Figure 2), and the litter size from one to 11 pups (6.81 ± 1.58, <i>n</i> = 145, Figure 2). Mammae number positively and significantly predicted litter size; linear regression: intercept ± SE 1.63 ± 0.93, <i>b</i> = 0.51 ± 0.09, <i>t</i><sub>(143)</sub> = 5.6, <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.18. This relationship was consistent even after controlling for the positive but nonsignificant effects of female body size and availability of masting trees within the territory (Appendix S1: Figures S1). In addition, we evaluated whether females had the same number of active mammae over their lifespans. We found moderate repeatability of this trait (intra-class correlation 0.29, 95% CI: 0.07–0.51). At the population level, we did not observe a change in mammae number between the first and subsequent breeding attempts (Appendix S1: Figure S3, mean difference in mammae number between first and second litters = −0.087, <i>n</i> = 46 females). Overall, in 27 cases, the females had the same mammae number between the first and second breedings; in six cases, we observed an increase by one; in two cases, an increase by two; in eight cases, it decreased by one; and three times, a decrease by two nipples (Figure 3).</p><p>Our data show an interesting fit to the one-half rule that was initially coined for interspecific comparisons (Gilbert, <span>1986</span>; Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). Litter size in dormouse females increases by one pup per additional pair of nipples. Comparative studies showed that the mammae/litter size relationships are universally positive, but the steepness of the slopes varies across mammal clades. For example, marsupials and carnivores have steeper slopes than Eulipotyphla (Stewart et al., <span>2020</span>). Even within rodent families, the steepness of the slopes differs, with the highest being among terrestrial squirrels (Gilbert, <span>1986</span>). As we mentioned earlier, the numbers of mammae are frequently considered an invariant species trait. However, several studies reported mammae count variability between populations in a range of species (e.g., Cockburn et al., <span>1983</span>; Kryštufek, <span>2004</span>; Ward, <span>1998</span>). At the intraspecific level, only one field study evaluated the one-half rule. Sherman et al. (<span>1999</span>) did not find support for the rule in both captive and wild Naked-mole Rats. However, this species is at its extreme, having unusually high mammae numbers relative to the litter size. In contrast, this issue attracted considerable attention in animal husbandry, but with mixed results (e.g., Bell, <span>1912</span>; Kim et al., <span>2005</span>; Korhonen, <span>1992</span>; Parker & Bullard, <span>1913</span>; Pearl, <span>1913b</span>). For economic reasons, many domesticated lines of mammals have been selected for high offspring productivity, where mammae numbers equal litter size. Therefore, in captive breeds that underwent selection for productivity, we might not observe the relationship of mammae number to litter size. However, captive breeds have the potential for exploring the genetic mechanisms of this rule.</p><p>We also show a remarkable variability in the number of active nipples within females' lifespans. Almost one-half of the females had different numbers of active nipples in subsequent breeding events. Surprisingly, this is an unexplored area. For example, in the Naked-mole Rat, only 6% of females changed mammary numbers over an individual's lifetime (Sherman et al., <span>1999</span>). We suggest that more attention be paid to the variability within species in mammae numbers. Possibly, in some species, this trait might have been overlooked, and instead of having a constant mammae count, the females flexibly activate mammae relative to their actual litter size. The meaning of the term mammae numbers needs to be clarified in each study. The number of mammae per species can be counted anatomically (usually on dead animals), ignoring the lactation status, or it can mean the number of nipples/teats used for active milk production (as in this study). We suggest the second is biologically meaningful because it shows the caring capacity of the female relative to her litter size. In addition, there is a solid piece of evidence that in some species the pups show high fidelity to particular mammae (Skok, <span>2018</span>). Species with mammae clinging have more pups per mamma than the non-clinging ones (Gilbert, <span>1995</span>).</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>Permits to handle the dormice were issued by the Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region (KÚOK 31204/2011, KUOK 61548/2017).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology\",\"volume\":\"106 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12441658/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70195\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70195","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
哺乳是哺乳动物的特征。哺乳动物的数量因目而异,从人类的2只到10只不等(Hayssen et al., 1992)。为什么不同分类群的哺乳动物数量差异如此之大?这个问题引起了自亚里士多德以来许多学者的注意,亚里士多德说:“产仔多的动物的奶妈长在腹部。”为什么会这样?它们有很多幼崽需要喂养,所以它们需要很多妈妈”(亚里士多德,1902)。比较研究表明,哺乳动物数量与产仔数共同进化。一般来说,产仔数与哺乳动物数量呈正相关关系,即产仔量大的哺乳动物会用更多的乳头来喂养它们的哺乳动物(Pearl, 1913a)。吉尔伯特(1986)将这种关系称为“二分法则”:一个特定物种的平均产仔数通常是现有哺乳动物的二分之一。因此,每只小狗通常有两个乳头或乳头。在整个分类群中,哺乳动物的数量比任何其他物种水平的特征(如体重、饮食、妊娠期或地理)更能解释产仔数的变化(Stewart et al., 2020)。这表明,哺乳动物的数量可能代表了哺乳动物繁殖力的限制。令人惊讶的是,几乎没有人试图评估“一半法则”是否也适用于一个物种。早期的研究人员甚至直接排除了这种可能性,声称,“似乎没有任何理由认为自然选择会倾向于在母亲的哺乳动物数量和种族中她的幼崽的大小之间产生关联”(哈里斯,1916)。最近,Diamond(1987)认为这是一个“恒定的物种特征”,Gilbert(1986)声称“除了少数例外,啮齿动物的乳房数量是一个物种典型的不变特征。”即使发现某些物种的哺乳动物数量不同,吉尔伯特也将这些物种排除在他的开创性研究之外。传统上,只有对家养动物的研究才关注哺乳动物数量和产仔数的种内变异问题,结果往往不确定(Bell, 1912; Kim et al., 2005; Korhonen, 1992; Parker & Bullard, 1913; Pearl, 1913b)。只有一项关于野生哺乳动物裸鼹鼠(Heterocephalus glaber)的研究评估了在一个物种中是否存在二分之一规则,但没有找到支持它的证据(Sherman et al., 1999)。食睡鼠(睡鼠科)是一种小型的夜行性树栖啮齿动物,栖息在欧洲各地的落叶林地。早期的研究发现种群内部和种群之间的哺乳动物数量不等(8到14)(Kryštufek, 2004, 2010; Naderi et al., 2014;图1a)。它是一种典型的树洞栖息物种,很容易接受巢箱作为天然树洞的替代品(图1b)。这种对巢箱的接受使我们能够对单个标记的雌性进行详细的纵向研究。在2013年至2015年期间,我们在捷克共和国东北部dlouh<s:1> lou<e:1> ka(49°49′N, 17°12′E)附近的长期野外站点(Adamík & Král, 2023)详细跟踪了每一只怀孕的雌性。每只睡鼠都被单独标记了一个被动集成应答器(PIT)标签,我们测量了体重和胫骨长度,并计算了活动哺乳动物的数量和产仔数(kukalov<e:1>等人,2013)。食用睡鼠的繁殖与欧洲山毛榉等树木的筑巢模式密切相关(Lebl et al., 2011; Pilastro et al., 2003)。因此,我们评估了每个繁殖巢箱周围可用山毛榉树的比例。当我们在分娩后检查雌性时,我们只考虑了这些胎(n = 145胎,holcov<e:1> Gazárková & Adamík, Zenodo上的2025年数据)。我们排除了4只出生日期在9月1日之后的幼崽,因为它们可能是第二胎或替换胎;5只幼崽出生在14天以上,母鼠将它们从另一个洞穴带入巢箱;18只幼崽使用公共巢穴(有关野外工作的日常细节,请参阅holcov<e:1> Gazárková & Adamík, 2016)。在接下来的几年中(2017-2022年),我们进行了一次不那么密集的实地调查,只记录了之前记录过的哺乳期雌性的乳头数量,并跟踪了它们一生中的繁殖表现(n = 112窝)。第二个数据集评估了乳头数量是否在雌性的一生中是一个固定的特征(holcov<e:1> Gazárková & Adamík, Zenodo上2025年的数据)。在本研究中,我们所说的哺乳动物数量是指具有活跃产奶量的哺乳动物。解剖学上的哺乳动物计数需要牺牲研究动物。活性(即哺乳期)母鼠数量为2 ~ 12只(mean±SD: 10.19±1.32,n = 145,图2),产仔数为1 ~ 11只(6.81±1.58,n = 145,图2)。母鼠数正显著预测产仔数;线性回归:拦截±1.63±0.93,b = 0.51±0.09,t (143) = 5.6, p & lt; 0.001, R2 = 0.18。 即使在控制了雌性体型和领地内树木可用性的正但不显著的影响后,这种关系也是一致的(附录S1:图S1)。此外,我们还评估了雌性在其一生中是否有相同数量的活跃哺乳动物。我们发现该性状具有中等的重复性(类内相关性0.29,95% CI: 0.07-0.51)。在种群水平上,我们没有观察到第一次和随后的繁殖尝试之间哺乳动物数量的变化(附录S1:图S3,第一胎和第二胎哺乳动物数量的平均差异= - 0.087,n = 46只雌性)。总体而言,有27例雌性在第一次繁殖和第二次繁殖之间具有相同的哺乳数量;在六个案例中,我们观察到增加了一个;在两种情况下,增加了两倍;在8个案例中,它减少了1;三次,减少两个乳头(图3)。我们的数据显示了与最初为种间比较创造的二分之一规则的有趣契合(Gilbert, 1986; Stewart et al., 2020)。雌性睡鼠每增加一对乳头,窝仔数就会增加一只。比较研究表明,哺乳动物/产仔数的关系普遍为正,但斜坡的陡峭程度在哺乳动物分支中有所不同。例如,有袋动物和食肉动物的斜坡比Eulipotyphla更陡峭(Stewart et al., 2020)。即使在啮齿类动物中,斜坡的陡峭程度也不同,最高的是陆生松鼠(Gilbert, 1986)。正如我们前面提到的,哺乳动物的数量通常被认为是一个不变的物种特征。然而,一些研究报告了哺乳动物数量在不同物种种群之间的差异(例如,Cockburn et al., 1983; Kryštufek, 2004; Ward, 1998)。在种内水平上,只有一个实地研究评估了二分之一规则。Sherman等人(1999)并没有在圈养和野生裸鼹鼠中发现支持这一规则的证据。然而,这个物种处于极端状态,相对于产仔数而言,哺乳动物的数量异常之多。相比之下,这个问题在畜牧业中引起了相当大的关注,但结果好坏参半(例如,Bell, 1912; Kim et al., 2005; Korhonen, 1992; Parker & Bullard, 1913; Pearl, 1913b)。出于经济原因,许多驯化的哺乳动物品种被选择为后代生产力高的品种,在这些品种中,哺乳动物的数量等于产仔数。因此,在经过生产力选择的圈养品种中,我们可能没有观察到哺乳动物数量与产仔数的关系。然而,圈养品种有潜力探索这一规律的遗传机制。我们还显示,在女性的寿命中,活跃乳头的数量有显著的变化。在随后的繁殖过程中,几乎一半的雌性有不同数量的活动乳头。令人惊讶的是,这是一个未开发的地区。例如,在裸鼹鼠中,只有6%的雌性在个体的一生中改变了乳房数量(Sherman et al., 1999)。我们建议更多地关注哺乳动物数量在种内的变异性。可能,在某些物种中,这一特征可能被忽视了,雌性没有固定的哺乳动物数量,而是根据实际产仔数灵活地激活哺乳动物。在每一项研究中,“哺乳动物数量”一词的含义都需要澄清。每个物种的哺乳动物数量可以在解剖学上计算(通常是在死去的动物身上),忽略哺乳状态,或者它可以意味着用于活跃产奶量的乳头/乳头的数量(如本研究)。我们认为第二种是有生物学意义的,因为它显示了雌性相对于产仔数量的照顾能力。此外,有确凿的证据表明,在某些物种中,幼崽对特定的哺乳动物表现出高度的忠诚(Skok, 2018)。依附于哺乳动物的物种比不依附于哺乳动物的物种每只幼崽更多(Gilbert, 1995)。作者声明无利益冲突。处理睡鼠的许可证由奥洛穆茨地区管理局颁发(KÚOK 31204/2011, KUOK 61548/2017)。
Mammae numbers and litter sizes in an arboreal rodent fit the one-half rule
Lactation is a defining mammal trait. Mammae numbers vary across orders, from 2 in humans to 29 in tenrecs (Hayssen et al., 1992). Why is there such a great variation of mammae counts across different taxa? This question attracted the attention of many scholars since Aristotle, who stated, “The animals that have large litters have their mammae upon the abdomen. Why is this? They have numerous young to feed, and so they need numerous mammae” (Aristotle, 1902).
Comparative studies have shown that mammae numbers coevolve with litter size. In general, litter size positively covaries with mammae count, that is, species with large litters nourish their sucklings from more nipples (Pearl, 1913a). Gilbert (1986) coined this relationship as a “one-half rule”: the average litter size in a given species is usually one-half of the available mammae. Thus, there are typically two nipples or teats per one pup. Across taxa, the mammae number explains more of the variation in litter size than any other species-level traits like body mass, diet, gestation length, or geography (Stewart et al., 2020). This indicates that mammae numbers might represent a constraint on fecundity across mammals.
Surprisingly, almost no attempts have been made to assess whether the one-half rule also applies within a species. Earlier researchers even directly excluded such possibility, claiming, “There seems no reason whatever to suppose that natural selection would tend to produce a correlation between the number of mammae in the mother and the size of her litters within a race” (Harris, 1916). More recently, Diamond (1987) considered it a “constant species characteristic,” and Gilbert (1986) claimed that “with few exceptions, mammary number in rodents is a species-typical invariant trait.” Even if some species were found with variable mammae counts, Gilbert excluded those species from his seminal study. Traditionally, only studies on domesticated animals paid attention to the issue of intraspecific variability in mammae numbers and litter size, with often inconclusive results (Bell, 1912; Kim et al., 2005; Korhonen, 1992; Parker & Bullard, 1913; Pearl, 1913b). Only one study on a wild mammal, the Naked-mole Rat (Heterocephalus glaber), assessed whether the one-half rule holds within a species but did not find support for it (Sherman et al., 1999).
The Edible Dormouse (Glis glis, Gliridae) is a small, nocturnal, arboreal rodent that inhabits deciduous woodlands across Europe. Earlier studies found variable numbers (8 to 14) of mammae within and between populations (Kryštufek, 2004, 2010; Naderi et al., 2014; Figure 1a). It is a typical tree cavity-dwelling species that readily accepts nest boxes as surrogates of natural tree hollows (Figure 1b). This acceptance of nest boxes enabled us to conduct a detailed longitudinal study of individually marked females over their lifespans. Between 2013 and 2015, we followed in detail every gestating female at our long-term field site near Dlouhá Loučka (49°49′ N, 17°12′ E) in the NE Czech Republic (Adamík & Král, 2023). Each dormouse was individually marked with a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, and we measured body mass and tibia length and counted the number of active mammae and litter size (Kukalová et al., 2013). Reproduction in the Edible Dormouse is tightly linked with the masting pattern in trees like European beech (Lebl et al., 2011; Pilastro et al., 2003). For this reason, we assessed the proportion of available masting beech trees around each breeding nest box. We considered only those litters when we checked the females right after the parturition (n = 145 litters, Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, 2025 data on Zenodo). We excluded 4 litters with birth dates after September 1 as they likely indicate second or replacement litters, 5 litters when the pups were older than 14 days, and the females brought them into the nest box from another cavity, and 18 litters with communal nests (for details on daily routines of fieldwork see Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, 2016). In the following years (2017–2022), we performed a less intensive field survey where we recorded nipple counts only in those lactating females that had been recorded before, and we could track their breeding performance over their lifespan (n = 112 litters). This second dataset assessed whether nipple count is a fixed character over the female's lifespan (Holcová Gazárková & Adamík, 2025 data on Zenodo). By mammae number in this study we mean mammae with active milk production. Anatomical mammae counts would require sacrificing the study animals.
The number of active (i.e., lactating) mammae ranged from 2 to 12 (mean ± SD: 10.19 ± 1.32, n = 145, Figure 2), and the litter size from one to 11 pups (6.81 ± 1.58, n = 145, Figure 2). Mammae number positively and significantly predicted litter size; linear regression: intercept ± SE 1.63 ± 0.93, b = 0.51 ± 0.09, t(143) = 5.6, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.18. This relationship was consistent even after controlling for the positive but nonsignificant effects of female body size and availability of masting trees within the territory (Appendix S1: Figures S1). In addition, we evaluated whether females had the same number of active mammae over their lifespans. We found moderate repeatability of this trait (intra-class correlation 0.29, 95% CI: 0.07–0.51). At the population level, we did not observe a change in mammae number between the first and subsequent breeding attempts (Appendix S1: Figure S3, mean difference in mammae number between first and second litters = −0.087, n = 46 females). Overall, in 27 cases, the females had the same mammae number between the first and second breedings; in six cases, we observed an increase by one; in two cases, an increase by two; in eight cases, it decreased by one; and three times, a decrease by two nipples (Figure 3).
Our data show an interesting fit to the one-half rule that was initially coined for interspecific comparisons (Gilbert, 1986; Stewart et al., 2020). Litter size in dormouse females increases by one pup per additional pair of nipples. Comparative studies showed that the mammae/litter size relationships are universally positive, but the steepness of the slopes varies across mammal clades. For example, marsupials and carnivores have steeper slopes than Eulipotyphla (Stewart et al., 2020). Even within rodent families, the steepness of the slopes differs, with the highest being among terrestrial squirrels (Gilbert, 1986). As we mentioned earlier, the numbers of mammae are frequently considered an invariant species trait. However, several studies reported mammae count variability between populations in a range of species (e.g., Cockburn et al., 1983; Kryštufek, 2004; Ward, 1998). At the intraspecific level, only one field study evaluated the one-half rule. Sherman et al. (1999) did not find support for the rule in both captive and wild Naked-mole Rats. However, this species is at its extreme, having unusually high mammae numbers relative to the litter size. In contrast, this issue attracted considerable attention in animal husbandry, but with mixed results (e.g., Bell, 1912; Kim et al., 2005; Korhonen, 1992; Parker & Bullard, 1913; Pearl, 1913b). For economic reasons, many domesticated lines of mammals have been selected for high offspring productivity, where mammae numbers equal litter size. Therefore, in captive breeds that underwent selection for productivity, we might not observe the relationship of mammae number to litter size. However, captive breeds have the potential for exploring the genetic mechanisms of this rule.
We also show a remarkable variability in the number of active nipples within females' lifespans. Almost one-half of the females had different numbers of active nipples in subsequent breeding events. Surprisingly, this is an unexplored area. For example, in the Naked-mole Rat, only 6% of females changed mammary numbers over an individual's lifetime (Sherman et al., 1999). We suggest that more attention be paid to the variability within species in mammae numbers. Possibly, in some species, this trait might have been overlooked, and instead of having a constant mammae count, the females flexibly activate mammae relative to their actual litter size. The meaning of the term mammae numbers needs to be clarified in each study. The number of mammae per species can be counted anatomically (usually on dead animals), ignoring the lactation status, or it can mean the number of nipples/teats used for active milk production (as in this study). We suggest the second is biologically meaningful because it shows the caring capacity of the female relative to her litter size. In addition, there is a solid piece of evidence that in some species the pups show high fidelity to particular mammae (Skok, 2018). Species with mammae clinging have more pups per mamma than the non-clinging ones (Gilbert, 1995).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Permits to handle the dormice were issued by the Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region (KÚOK 31204/2011, KUOK 61548/2017).
期刊介绍:
Ecology publishes articles that report on the basic elements of ecological research. Emphasis is placed on concise, clear articles documenting important ecological phenomena. The journal publishes a broad array of research that includes a rapidly expanding envelope of subject matter, techniques, approaches, and concepts: paleoecology through present-day phenomena; evolutionary, population, physiological, community, and ecosystem ecology, as well as biogeochemistry; inclusive of descriptive, comparative, experimental, mathematical, statistical, and interdisciplinary approaches.