Population Density and Diurnal Rhythm, but not Familiarity, Shape Proximity Behavior in Female Albino Mice

• Muna Agbali

  Zoology Department, Omar AL-Mukhtar University, AL-bayda , Libya.

  Author

• Hana Faraj Abdalkaream

  Zoology Department, Tubrok University, Tubrok City, Libya.

  Author

• Mansour Salem

  Zoology Department, Omar AL-Mukhtar University, AL-bayda , Libya.

  Author

This study examined how population density affects proximity behaviour in female albino mice (Mus musculus) and whether familiarity with a partner influences this behaviour. Three group sizes were established with an equal sex ratio: small (10 individuals), medium (20), and large (30). Each group contained one focal female with familiar and unfamiliar marked males, as well as control females. Proximity, defined as following or remaining stationary near another individual, was recorded for 15 minutes every hour from 8:00 to 16:00. Proximity rates showed a strong diurnal pattern, peaking between 8:00 and 9:00 and declining to near zero by the afternoon across all densities. Familiarity did not affect proximity: females did not stay closer to familiar males than to unfamiliar males, nor to familiar females than to unfamiliar females. Group size, however, had a significant effect. Mean proximity rates were similar in small and medium densities but markedly lower in the largest density. Two-way ANOVA confirmed a main effect of density on proximity for both sexes, while familiarity and its interaction with density were not significant. These findings indicate that proximity behaviour in albino mice is modulated by time of day and overall group size, but not by individual familiarity. High population densities suppress social proximity, possibly through increased stress or competition. The results highlight the importance of considering social context and temporal factors when designing mate choice experiments.

Agbali, M. M., Attia, M. S., Abdulkarim, H. F., Saleh, Y. A., Bataw, A. A., & Almabrouk, M. Y. (2023). The role of olfactory cues in female mating choice in albino mice Mus musculus. Academic International Journal of Pure Sciences, 1(2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.59675/P124

Agbali, M. M., Awadh, H. F., Mohammrd, A. R., & Attia, M. S. (2022). The familiarity in female mating choices in albino mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758). Libyan Journal of Basic Sciences, 19(5), 44–55.

Agbali, M., Salem, M., & Abdalkaream, H. F. (2026). Effects of prior familiarity on female mate choice in the albino mouse (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758): Olfactory and live-encounter tests reveal context-dependent decoupling. Al-Mukhtar Journal of Basic Sciences, 24 (1), 70–79.

Banks, E. M., Minton, J. E., & Cross, R. A. (1979). Effects of familiarization on social preferences in male and female rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 93(3), 544–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077582.

Christian, J. J. (1971). Population density and the neuroendocrine system. American Zoologist, 11(4), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/11.4.595.

Clarke, F. M., & Faulkes, C. G. (1999). Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1432), 1995–2002. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0877

Creel, S., Dantzer, B., Goymann, W., & Rubenstein, D. R. (2013). The ecology of stress: Effects of the social environment. Functional Ecology, 27(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02029.x

DeVries, A. C., Johnson, C. L., & Carter, C. S. (1997). Familiarity and gender influence social preferences in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75(2), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1139/z97-037

Evans, J. C., Lindholm, A. K., & König, B. (2021). Long-term overlap of social and genetic structure in free-ranging house mice reveals dynamic seasonal and group size effects. Current Zoology, 67 (1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoaa030

Fadao, T., Tingzheng, W., & Yajun, Z. (2000). Inbreeding avoidance and mate choice in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(12), 2119–2125. https://doi.org/10.1139/z00-149

Ferkin, M. H. (1988). The effect of familiarity on social interactions in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus: A laboratory and field study. Animal Behaviour, 36(6), 1816–1822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80122-1

Frynta, D., Volfová, R., Fraňková-Nováková, M., & Stejskal, V. (2010). Oestrous females investigate the unfamiliar male more than the familiar male in both commensal and non-commensal populations of house mice. Behavioural Processes, 83(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.10.002

Gaskill, B. N., Garner, J. P., & Pritchett-Corning, K. R. (2012). Energy reallocation to breeding performance through voluntary wheel running in mice. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e41303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041303

Gattermann, R., Johnston, R. E., Yigit, N., Fritzsche, P., Larimer, S., & Özkurt, Ş. (2008). Golden hamsters are nocturnal in captivity but diurnal in nature. Biology Letters, 4(3), 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0066

Gillis, E. A., & Nams, V. O. (1998). How red-backed voles find food patches. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76(5), 862–866. https://doi.org/10.1139/z98-012

Guenet, J.-L., Benavides, F., Panthier, J.-J., & Montagutelli, X. (2015). Basic concepts of reproductive biology and genetics. In Genetics of the Mouse (pp. 19–49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44287-6_2

Head, M. L., Lindholm, A. K., & Brooks, R. (2008). Operational sex ratio and density do not affect directional selection on male sexual ornaments and behavior. Evolution, 62(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00278.x

Hurst, J. L., & Beynon, R. J. (2004). Scent wars: The chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. BioEssays, 26(12), 1288–1298. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20147

Hut, R. A., & van der Zee, E. A. (2011). The chronobiology of behaviour: A role for the suprachiasmatic nucleus? Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 23(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2010.02083.x

Jirotkul, M. (1999). Population density influences male-male competition in guppies. Animal Behaviour, 58(6), 1169–1175. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1262

Kavaliers, M., et al. (2022). Odor-based mate choice copying in deer mice is not affected by familiarity or kinship. Animal Cognition, 25(2), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01550-z

Kokko, H., & Rankin, D. J. (2006). Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density dependent effects in mating systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1784

Koskela, E., Mappes, T., & Ylönen, H. (1999). Experimental manipulation of breeding density and litter size in the bank vole. Oikos, 86(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546563

Lima, S. L., & Dill, L. M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68(4), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-092

Miller, C. H., et al. (2023). Dynamic changes to signal allocation rules in response to variable social environments in house mice. Communications Biology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04642-3

Ohayon, S., Avni, O., Taylor, A. L., Perona, P., & Egnor, S. R. (2013). Automated multi-day tracking of marked mice for the analysis of social behaviour. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 219(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.06.013

Pusey, A., & Wolf, M. (1996). Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(5), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10028-8

Qvarnström, A., & Forsgren, E. (1998). Should females prefer dominant males? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(12), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01513-4

Rimbach, R., & Pillay, N. (2022). Cooperation by necessity: condition- and density-dependent reproductive tactics of female house mice. Communications Biology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03234-5

Roberts, S. C., & Gosling, L. M. (2004). Manipulation of olfactory signaling and mate choice for conservation breeding: A case study of harvest mice. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00322.x

Robbers, Y., et al. (2021). Group housing and social dominance hierarchy affect circadian activity patterns in mice. Royal Society Open Science, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201885

Saleh, Y. A., Agbali, M. M., Salem, M., & Saad, K. A. (2022). Dominant male and female mate choice behaviour in albino mice Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 12(6), 6–14.

Singleton, G. R., & Krebs, C. J. (2007). The secret world of wild mice. In The Mouse in Biomedical Research (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 25–51). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369454-6/50039-X

Stein, M. A. (2022). The Relationship between Cognitive Aggression and Sociability of Male Mice in Enriched Environment. Acta Naturae et Scientia, 3(1).

Swaisgood, R. R., Martin, J. K., & Shepherdson, D. J. (2018). The role of mate choice in captive breeding programs. Zoo Biology, 37(5), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21426

Theil, J. H., et al. (2020). The epidemiology of fighting in group-housed laboratory mice. Scientific Reports, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73620-0

Van Loo, P. L. P., Mol, J. A., Koolhaas, J. M., Van Zutphen, B. F. M., & Baumans, V. (2001). Modulation of aggression in male mice: Influence of cage cleaning regime and scent marks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 71(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00163-0

Ward, A. J. W., & Webster, M. M. (2016). Sociality: The behaviour of group-living animals. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28585-6

• pdf

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.