Parasites make male pipefish careless

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 519-527

  Mazzi, D ^a,b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Choosiness; Cryptocotyle; Mate choice; Parasite mediated sexual selection; Parasitism; Pipefish; Syngnathus typhle

Indexed keywords

SEA WATER;

HOST-PARASITE INTERACTION; MATE CHOICE; PARASITISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TRADE-OFF;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETIC SELECTION; HOST PARASITE INTERACTION; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; PARASITOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SMEGMAMORPHA; SWEDEN; TREMATODE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HETEROPHYIDAE; HOST-PARASITE RELATIONS; MALE; SEAWATER; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SMEGMAMORPHA; SWEDEN;

ANIMALIA; CRYPTOCOTYLE; SMEGMAMORPHA; SYNGNATHUS; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE; TREMATODA;

EID: 2342509140     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00704.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Able, D.J. 1996. The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 2229-2233.
2. Ahnesjö, I. 1992a. Consequences of male brood care; weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Funct. Ecol. 6: 274-281.
3. Ahnesjö, I. 1992b. Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle L. J. Fish Biol. 41 (Suppl. B): 53-63.
4. Berglund, A. 1991. Egg competition in a sex-role reversed pipefish: subdominant females trade reproduction for growth. Evolution 45: 770-774.
5. Berglund, A. 1993a. Risky sex: male pipefishes mate at random in the presence of a predator. Anim. Behav. 46: 169-175.
6. Berglund, A. 1993b. The operational sex ratio influences choosiness in a pipefish. Behav. Ecol. 5: 254-258.
7. Berglund, A. 1995. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132: 213-218.
8. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist, G. 1990. Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish: effects of body size differences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 129-133.
9. Berglund, A. & Rosenqvist G. 1993. Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 331-336.
10. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1986a. Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29: 209-215.
11. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1986b. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 301-307.
12. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. & Svensson, I. 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in two pipefish species. Am. Nat. 133: 506-516.
13. Emlen, S.T. 1976. Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1: 283-313.
14. Emlen, S.T. & Oring, L.W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.
15. Fuller, R. & Berglund, A. 1996. Behavioral responses of a sex-role reversed pipefish to a gradient of perceived predation risk. Behav. Ecol. 7: 69-75.
16. Hakkarainen, H., Ilmonen, P., Koivunen, V. & Korpimäki, E. 1998. Blood parasites and nest defense behaviour of Tengmalm's owls. Oecologia 114: 574-577.
17. Hamilton, W.D. & Zuk, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.
18. Houde, A.E. & Torio, A.J. 1992. Effect of parasitic infection on male color pattern and female choice in guppies. Behav. Ecol. 3: 346-351.
19. Keymer, A.E. & Read, A.F. 1991. Behavioural ecology: the impact of parasitism. In: Parasite-Host Associations: Coexistence or Conflict? (C. A. Toft, A. Aeschlimann & L. Bolis, eds), pp. 37-61. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
21. Kvarnemo, C. & Ahnesjö, I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 404-408.
22. Lemly, A.D. & Esch, G.W. 1984. Effects of the trematode Uvulifer ambloplitis on juvenile bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus: ecological implications. J. Parasitol. 70: 475-492.
23. Lessells, C.M. & Boag, P.T. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104: 116-121.
24. López, S. 1999. Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Anim. Behav. 57: 1129-1134.
25. Milinski, M. 1990. Parasites and host decision-making. In: Parasitism and Host Behaviour (C. J. Barnard & J. M. Behnke, eds), pp. 95-116. Taylor & Francis, London.
26. Milinski, M. & Bakker, T.C.M. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344: 330-333.
27. Møller, A.P. 1994. Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Owen, S.F., Barber, I. & Hart, P.J.B. 1993. Low level infection by eye fluke, Diplostomum spp., affects the vision of three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. J. Fish Biol. 42: 803-806.
29. Pfennig, K.S. & Tinsley, R.C. 2002. Different mate preferences by parasitized and unparasitized females potentially reduces sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 399-406.
30. Poulin, R. 1993. Age-dependent effects of parasites on antipredator responses in two New-Zealand freshwater fish. Oecologia 96: 431-438.
31. Poulin, R. 1994. Mate choice decisions by parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256: 183-187.
32. Poulin, R. & Vickery, W.L. 1996. Parasite-mediated sexual selection: just how choosy are parasitized females? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38: 43-49.
33. Rice, W.R. & Gaines, S.D. 1994. Extending nondirectional heterogeneity tests to evaluate simply ordered alternative hypotheses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 225-226.
34. Rosenqvist, G. & Johansson, K. 1995. Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim. Behav. 49: 1039-1045.
35. Schäperclaus, W. 1990. Fischkrankheiten, 5th edn. Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
36. Simmons, L.W. 1993. Courtship role reversal in bush crickets: another role for parasites? Behav. Ecol. 5: 259-266.
37. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. Freeman and Co., New York.
38. Stunkard, H.W. 1930. The life history of Cryptocotyle lingua. J. Morphol. Physiol. 50: 143-191.
39. Thomas, F., Renaud, F., Derothe, J.M., Lambert A., De Meeüs, T. & Cézilly, F. 1995. Assortative pairing in Gammarus insensibilis (Amphipoda) infected by a trematode parasite. Oecalogia 104: 259-264.
40. Thulin, J., Höglund, J. & Lindesjöö, E. 1989. Fisksjukdomar i kustvatten. Naturvårdsverket, Solna.
41. West, S.A., Flanagan, K.E. & Godfray, H.C.J. 2001. Variable host quality, life-history invariants, and the reproductive strategy of a parasitoid wasp that produces single sex clutches. Behav. Ecol. 12: 577-583.