Multiply mated males show higher embryo survival in a paternally caring fish

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 625-629

  Sagebakken, Gry ^a   Ahnesjö, Ingrid ^b   Braga Goncalves, Ines ^a   Kvarnemo, Charlotta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

brood reduction; paternal care; polygyny; postcopulatory sexual selection; progeny diversity; Syngnathidae

Indexed keywords

BROOD SIZE; COPULATION; EMBRYO; FITNESS; KIN SELECTION; MALE BEHAVIOR; PARENTAL CARE; POLYGAMY; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SIBLING; SURVIVORSHIP; TELEOST;

SYNGNATHIDAE; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

EID: 79955433700     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr023     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ahnesjö I. 1992a. Consequences of male brood care-weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Funct Ecol. 6:274-281. (Pubitemid 23396223)
2. Ahnesjö I. 1992b. Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle L. J Fish Biol. 41: 53-63. (Pubitemid 24406409)
3. Ahnesjö I. 1995. Temperature affects male and female potential reproductive rates differently in the sex-role reversed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Behav Ecol. 6:229-233. (Pubitemid 26450863)
4. Ahnesjö I. 1996. Apparent resource competition among embryos in the brood pouch of a male pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:167-172.
5. Altizer S, Nunn CL, Thrall PH, Gittleman JL, Antonovics J, Cunningham AA, Dobson AP, Ezenwa V, Jones KE, Pedersen AB, et al. 2003. Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: integrating theory and empirical studies. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 34:517-547. (Pubitemid 38171429)
6. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
7. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 60:145-164.
8. Avise JC, Liu JX. 2010. Multiple mating and its relationship to alternative modes of gestation in male-pregnant versus female-pregnant fish species. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:18915-18920.
9. Bateman, AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2:349-368.
10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2003. Sex role reversal in pipefish. Advances in the study of behavior, Vol 32. San Diego (CA): Academic Press Inc. p. 131-167.
11. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986a. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 19:301-307.
12. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986b. Reversed sex-roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 29:209-215.
13. Braga Goncalves I, Mobley KB, Ahnesjö I, Sagebakken G, Jones AG, Kvarnemo C. 2010. Reproductive compensation in broad-nosed pipefish females. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277:1581-1587.
14. Crean AJ, Marshall DJ. 2009. Coping with environmental uncertainty: dynamic bet hedging as a maternal effect. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 364:1087-1096.
15. Eberhard WG. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
16. Fiedler K. 1954. Vergleichende verhaltensstudien an Seenadeln, Schlangennadeln und Seepferdchen (Syngnathidae). Z Tierpsychol. 11:358-416.
17. Forbes LS, Mock DW, 1998. Parental optimism and progeny choice: when is screening for offspring quality affordable? J Theor Biol.,192, 3-14. (Pubitemid 28254401)
18. Forsman A, Ahnesjö J, Caesar S. 2007. Fitness benefits of diverse offspring in pygmy grasshoppers. Evol Ecol Res. 9:1305-1318. (Pubitemid 351224315)
19. Haig D. 1990. Brood reduction and optimal parental investment when offspring differ in quality. Am Nat. 136:550-556.
20. Hosken DJ, Blanckenhorn WU. 1999. Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts. Behav Ecol. 10:462-464. (Pubitemid 29456154)
21. Innocenti P, Morrow EH. 2009. Immunogenic males: a genome-wide analysis of reproduction and the cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol. 22:964-973.
22. Jennions MD, Drayton JM, Brooks R, Hunt J. 2007. Do female black field crickets Teleogryllus commodus benefit from polyandry? J Evol Biol. 20:1469-1477. (Pubitemid 46956645)
23. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev. 75:21-64. (Pubitemid 30135849)
24. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC. 1999. The genetic mating system of a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav Ecol. 46:357-365. (Pubitemid 129748807)
25. Kamel SJ, Grosberg RK, Marshall DJ. 2010. Family conflicts in the sea. Trends Ecol Evol. 25:442-449.
26. Keller L, Reeve HK. 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males-the sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Study Behav. 24:291-315.
27. LaDage LD, Gutzke WHN, Simmons RA, Ferkin MH. 2008. Multiple mating increases fecundity, fertility and relative clutch mass in the female leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius). Ethology. 114:512-520. (Pubitemid 351514557)
28. Lindström K. 2000. The evolution of filial cannibalism and female mate choice strategies as resolutions to sexual conflict in fishes. Evolution. 54:617-627. (Pubitemid 30263935)
29. Lindström K, St Mary CM. 2008. Parental care and sexual selection. In: Magnhagen C, Braithwaite VA, Forsgren E, Kapoor BG, editors. Fish behaviour. Enfield (NH): Science Publishers. p. 377-409.
30. Magnhagen C. 1991. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol. 6:183-185.
31. Mock DW. 1994. Brood reduction: narrow sense, broad sense. J Avian Biol. 25:3-7.
32. Mock DW. 2004. More than kin and less than kind. The evolution of family conflict. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
33. Mock DW, Forbes LS. 1995. The evolution of parental optimism. Trends Ecol Evol. 10:130-134.
34. Paczolt KA, Jones AG. 2010. Post-copulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature. 464:401-U94.
35. Parker GA, Royle NJ, Hartley IR. 2002. Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:295-307. (Pubitemid 34432066)
36. Partridge C, Shardo J, Boettcher A. 2007. Osmoregulatory role of the brood pouch in the euryhaline Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Comp Biochem Physiol A. 147:556-561. (Pubitemid 46618014)
37. Ripley JL. 2009. Osmoregulatory role of the paternal brood pouch for two Syngnathus species. Comp Biochem Physiol A. 154:98-104.
38. Ripley JL, Foran CM. 2006. Differential parental nutrient allocation in two congeneric pipefish species. (Syngnathidae: Syngnathus spp.). J Exp Biol. 209:1112-1121.
39. Ripley JL, Foran CM. 2009. Direct evidence for embryonic uptake of paternally-derived nutrients in two pipefishes (Syngnathidae: Syngnathus spp.). J Comp Physiol B. 179:325-333.
40. Rispoli VF, Wilson AB. 2008. Sexual size dimorphism predicts the frequency of multiple mating in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. J Evol Biol. 21:30-38. (Pubitemid 350256648)
41. Rodriguez-Munõz R, Bretman A, Slate J, Walling CA, Tregenza T. 2010. Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science. 328:1269-1272.
42. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Owens IPF, Parker GA. 1999. Sibling competition and the evolution of growth rates in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266:923-932. (Pubitemid 29237685)
43. Sagebakken G, Ahnesjö I, Mobley KB, Goncalves IB, Kvarnemo C. 2010. Brooding fathers, not siblings, take up nutrients from embryos. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277:971-977.
44. Stockley P, Macdonald DW. 1998. Why do female common shrews produce so many offspring? Oikos. 83:560-566. (Pubitemid 29072997)
45. Thunken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H. 2010. Parental investment in relation to offspring quality in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Anim Behav. 80:69-74.
46. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature. 415:71-73. (Pubitemid 34062450)
47. Trivers RL. 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool. 14:249-264.
48. Yasui Y. 1998. The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol. 13:246-250. (Pubitemid 28267767)
49. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1711-1717.