| Abstract: | Previous studies have indicated that many, but not all, female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) housed with their natal families undergo social suppression of ovulation. In this study, we further characterized ovulatory activity in common marmoset daughters to determine the prevalence of social suppression of ovulation and to elucidate familial influences on daughters' ovarian activity. Blood samples were collected twice weekly from each of 46 daughters for 5–12 months, usually beginning when the daughters were 12 months of age. Plasma progesterone concentrations indicated that 46.3% of daughters in intact natal families ovulated at least once, with the age at first ovulation averaging 17.2 months; however, none of these daughters became pregnant. Daughters' ovulatory cycles showed several significant differences from those of older females housed with unrelated adults, including longer periods between successive luteal phases, shorter luteal phases, and lower peak and mean luteal-phase progesterone levels. Daughters were significantly more likely to ovulate in families in which the mother was experimentally prevented from sustaining pregnancies, and in families in which the father had been replaced by an unrelated adult male and when the daughter was approximately 10–11 months of age. Daughters in families containing an older sister never ovulated; in contrast, those with a female littermate were not less likely to ovulate than were other daughters, but had more sporadic ovarian cycles and significantly lower mean luteal-phase progesterone levels. These results confirm and extend previous findings that up to half of female common marmosets may ovulate while housed with the natal family but that virtually none sustain pregnancies, suggesting that suppression of ovulation is only one of several components of reproductive failure. Furthermore, these results demonstrate that daughters' likelihood of ovulating, as well as the endocrine profiles of their ovulatory cycles, can be modulated by numerous social influences within the family. Am. J. Primatol. 41:159–177, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc. |
