Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 35 min ago
PreprintCC BYbioRxiv

How does housing quality affect maternal investment and reproduction?

  1. 1University of Guelph

Abstract

Poor housing is linked to reproductive failure in captive mammals, but the mechanisms are rarely tested. To understand the mechanism behind it, we used DBA/2 mice as models and in conventional housing (CH) and well-resourced housing (WR) across three cohorts (N = 36 sister-pair cages; 6 CH and 6 WR per Cohort). We tested two mutually non-exclusive mechanisms: the energy hypothesis (low maternal body condition, measured as BMI, impairs reproduction) and the stereotypic behaviour (SB) hypothesis (SB competes with reproduction and maternal care regardless of body condition). Housing affected maternal care: WR dams built better nests (p = 0.002), nursed more (p = 0.018) and nursed for more days before weaning (p = 0.023), and their pups tended to be heavier at PND 28 (14.2 vs 12.5 g, p = 0.06). Unexpectedly, all CH dams (7/7) retrieved displaced pups, but no WR dams did (0/8), likely reflecting how the test cage was perceived. But housing did not affect mating, pregnancy, litter size, pup survival or pup weight up to postnatal day (PND) 21. CH females performed about 9 times more SB than WR females before mating, and the difference persisted through lactation. BMI did not differ by housing, so the energy hypothesis was not supported. Adding SB to models weakened housing effects on nest quality and nursing, but SB itself did not significantly predict any outcome. Here, we found that housing quality mainly shapes how dams care for pups during lactation but not their capacity to breed. SB may play a partial role, but that needs better-powered testing. This study supports improving housing for captive breeding programmes now, even though the mechanism remains unknown.

Related

  1. Luffa Rootstocks Affect Fruit Quality of Grafted White-Fruited Bitter Melon
    Pingping Fang, Haoxin Mu, Haoran Ma +6
    Plants (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textPlant biologyEurope PMC
  2. Male Age and Sexual Maturity: Lipopolysaccharide-induced tumor necrosis factor influences sperm quality and reproduction in Anopheles culicifacies
    P. Rohilla, V. Saini, V. Srivastava +8
    bioRxivPreprintCC BYFull textDevelopmental biologybioRxiv
  3. Black soldier fly maggot oil as a sustainable soybean oil substitute: maternal and in ovo feeding enhances broiler chick quality, gut integrity, immunity, and DNA methylation
    Yendouhamtchié Nadiedjoa, Xiaojuan Wang, Komi Attivi +12
    Journal of Agriculture and Food ResearchPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textZoology & animal behaviourDOAJ
  4. Reproductive success under constraints: Does increased maternal activity during lactation offset poor habitat and individual quality in an income breeder?
    L. Monica Trondrud, Jean‐michel Gaillard, Nadège C Bonnot +5
    Functional EcologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textEcologyZoology & animal behaviourHAL
  5. Health prevention research in France: Increasing investment is a priority, rethinking targets is equally crucial
    Louise Potvin, Chloé Hamant, Zoé Rollin
    Canadian Journal of Public HealthPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
BibTeX
@misc{anandarajan2026does,
  title = {{How does housing quality affect maternal investment and reproduction?}},
  author = {P. Anandarajan and G. Mason},
  howpublished = {bioRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.64898/2026.10.17.759638},
  url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.17.759638v1},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - How does housing quality affect maternal investment and reproduction?
AU  - P. Anandarajan
AU  - G. Mason
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/17
PB  - bioRxiv
DO  - 10.64898/2026.10.17.759638
UR  - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.17.759638v1
AB  - Poor housing is linked to reproductive failure in captive mammals, but the mechanisms are rarely tested. To understand the mechanism behind it, we used DBA/2 mice as models and in conventional housing (CH) and well-resourced housing (WR) across three cohorts (N = 36 sister-pair cages; 6 CH and 6 WR per Cohort). We tested two mutually non-exclusive mechanisms: the energy hypothesis (low maternal body condition, measured as BMI, impairs reproduction) and the stereotypic behaviour (SB) hypothesis (SB competes with reproduction and maternal care regardless of body condition). Housing affected maternal care: WR dams built better nests (p = 0.002), nursed more (p = 0.018) and nursed for more days before weaning (p = 0.023), and their pups tended to be heavier at PND 28 (14.2 vs 12.5 g, p = 0.06). Unexpectedly, all CH dams (7/7) retrieved displaced pups, but no WR dams did (0/8), likely reflecting how the test cage was perceived. But housing did not affect mating, pregnancy, litter size, pup survival or pup weight up to postnatal day (PND) 21. CH females performed about 9 times more SB than WR females before mating, and the difference persisted through lactation. BMI did not differ by housing, so the energy hypothesis was not supported. Adding SB to models weakened housing effects on nest quality and nursing, but SB itself did not significantly predict any outcome. Here, we found that housing quality mainly shapes how dams care for pups during lactation but not their capacity to breed. SB may play a partial role, but that needs better-powered testing. This study supports improving housing for captive breeding programmes now, even though the mechanism remains unknown.
ER  -