Effects of mating order and male size on embryo survival in a pipefish

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 639-645

  Goncalves, Ines Braga ^a,b   Mobley, Kenyon B ^c   Ahnesjö, Ingrid ^d   Sagebakken, Gry ^a   Jones, Adam G ^e   Kvarnemo, Charlotta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c August Thienemann Strae 2   (Germany)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential allocation; Mating constraints; Parental investment; Paternal care; Reproductive compensation hypothesis; Sex role reversal

Indexed keywords

CLUTCH SIZE; EMBRYO; MATING BEHAVIOR; PARENTAL CARE; POPULATION GENETICS; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SURVIVORSHIP;

SYNGNATHUS; SYNGNATHUS TYPHLE;

EID: 84922681670     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bij.12441     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ahnesjö I. 1992a. Consequences of male brood care-weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Functional Ecology 6: 274-281.
2. Ahnesjö I. 1992b. Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle L. Journal of Fish Biology 41: 53-63.
3. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 1990. Male limitation of female reproductive success in a pipefish-effects of body-size differences. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27: 129-133.
4. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986a. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 19: 301-307.
5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1986b. Reversed sex-roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29: 209-215.
6. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I. 1989. Reproductive success of females limited by males in two pipefish species. American Naturalist 133: 506-516.
7. Berglund A, Widemo MS, Rosenqvist G. 2005. Sex-role reversal revisited: choosy females and ornamented, competitive males in a pipefish. Behavioral Ecology 16: 649-655.
8. Braga Goncalves I. 2010. Egg size evolution and paternal care in pipefishes. DPhil Thesis, University of Gothenburg.
9. Braga Goncalves I, Ahnesjö I, Kvarnemo C. 2011. The relationship between female body size and egg size in pipefishes. Journal of Fish Biology 78: 1847-1854.
10. Braga Goncalves I, Mobley KB, Ahnesjö I, Sagebakken G, Jones AG, Kvarnemo C. 2010. Reproductive compensation in broad-nosed pipefish females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 277: 1581-1587.
11. Finn NR, Fyhn HJ. 2010. Requirement of amino acids in ontogeny of fish. Aquaculture Research 41: 684-716.
12. Gowaty P. 2008. Reproductive compensation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21: 1189-1200.
13. Gowaty P, Anderson W, Bluhm C, Drickamer L, Kim Y, Moore A. 2007. The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 15023-15027.
14. Harris WE, Uller T. 2009. Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 364: 1039-1048.
15. Hoelzer G. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 38: 1067-1078.
16. Jaworski A, Kamler E. 2002. Development of a bioenergetics model for fish embryos and larvae during the yolk feeding period. Journal of Fish Biology 60: 785-809.
17. Kamler E. 2005. Parent-egg-progeny relationships in teleost fishes: an energetics perspective. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 399-421.
18. Kvarnemo C, Mobley KB, Partridge C, Jones AG, Ahnesjö I. 2011. Evidence of paternal nutrient provisioning to embryos in broad-nosed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Journal of Fish Biology 78: 1725-1737.
19. Lahnsteiner F. 2007. First results on a relation between ovarian fluid and egg proteins of Salmo trutta and egg quality. Aquaculture Research 38: 131-139.
20. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews 82: 591-605.
21. Paczolt KA, Jones AG. 2010. Postcopulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464: 401-404.
22. Parker GA. 1983. Mate quality and mating decisions. In: Bateson P, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141-166.
23. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman N. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 48: 187-211.
24. Ratikainen II, Kokko H. 2010. Differential allocation and compensation: who deserves the silver spoon? Behavioral Ecology 21: 195-200.
25. Roth O, Klein V, Beemelmanns A, Scharsack JP, Reusch TBH. 2012. Male pregnancy and biparental immune priming. American Naturalist 180: 802-814.
26. Roth O, Sundin J, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Wegnes KM. 2014. Male mate choice relies on major histocompatibility complex class I in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 929-938.
27. Sandvik M, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. 2000. Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 267: 2151-2155.
28. Sogabe A, Ahnesjö I. 2011. The ovarian structure and mode of egg production in two polygamous pipefishes: a link to mating pattern. Journal of Fish Biology 78: 1833-1846.
29. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1981. Biometry. New York, NY: WH Freeman and Company.
30. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campell B, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 136-179.
31. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A. 1994. Operational sex-ratios and behavioral sex-differences in a pipefish population. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34: 435-442.
32. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-213.