Skip to main content
Log in

Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females

  • Published:
Journal of Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When males are the larger sex, a positive allometric relationship between male and female sizes is often found across populations of a single species (i.e. Rensch’s rule). This pattern is typically explained by a sexual selection pressure on males. Here, we report that the allometric relationship was negative across populations of a shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus, although males are extremely larger than females. Male L. callipterus collect and defend empty snail shells in each of which a female breeds. We found that, across six populations, male and female sizes are positively correlated with not only sexual and fecundity selection indices, but also with shell sizes. Given their different reproductive behaviours, these correlations mean that males are required to be more powerful, and thus larger, to transport larger shells, while female bodies are reduced to the shell size to enable them to enter the shells. Among the three size selections (sexual selection, fecundity selection and shell size), shell size explained the allometry, suggesting that females are more strongly subject to size selection associated with shell size availability than males. However, the allometry was violated when considering an additional population where size-selection regimes of males differed from that of other populations. Therefore, sexual size allometry will be violated by body size divergence induced by multiple selection regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

H:

height

RMA:

reduced major axis

SL:

standard length

SSD:

sexual size dimorphism

W:

width

References

  • Alcock 2005 Animal behaviour: an evolutionary approach, 8th edition (MA: Sinauer Associates)

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M 1994 Sexual selection (NJ: Princeton University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arak A 1988 Sexual dimorphism in body size: a model and a test; Evolution 42 820–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn W U 2000 The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?; Q. Rev. Biol. 75 385–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn W U 2005 Behavioural causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism; Ethology 111 977–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn W U, Stillwell R C, Young K A, Fox C W and Ashton K G 2006 When Rensch meets Bergmann: does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude?; Evolution 60 2004–2011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borg Å, Forsgren E and Magnhagen C 2002 Plastic sex-roles in the common goby the effect of nest availability; Oikos 98 105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale J, Dunn P O, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T and Whittingham L A 2007 Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism; Proc. R. Soc. London B 274 2971–2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen S T and Oring L W 1977 Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems; Science 197 215–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn D J 1997 Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females; Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28 659–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn D J 2005 Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: testing two hypotheses for Rensch’s rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis; Am. Nat. (Suppl.) 116 69–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn D J and Preziosi R F 1994 Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis; Am. Nat. 144 101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn D J, Blackenhorn W U and Szekély T 2007 Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism (NY: Oxford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Falster, D S, Warton D I and Wright I J 2003 (S)MATR: standardized major axis tests and routines. Version 1.0; http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR

  • Forsgren E, Kvarnemo C and Lindstrom K 1996 Mode of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations; Evolution 50 646–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gashagaza M M, Nakaya K and Sato T 1995 Taxonomy of small-sized cichlid fishes in the shell-bed area of Lake Tanganyika; Japan J. Ichthol. 42 291–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Head G 1995 Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (class Aranae); Evolution 49 776–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick A V and Temeles E J 1989 The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests; Trend. Ecol. Evol. 4 136–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraushaar U and Blanckenhorn W U 2002 Population variation in sexual selection and its effect on size allometry in two dung fly species with contrasting sexual size dimorphism; Evolution 56 307–321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen T and Lindström K 2008 Density-dependent sexual selection in the monogamous fish Archocentrus nigrofasciatus; Oikos 117 867–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengkeek W, Didderen K, Côté I M, van der Zee E M, Snoek R C and Reynolds J D 2008 Plasticity in sexual size dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in Mediterranean blennies (Blenniidae); Can. J. Zool. 86 1173–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maan M and Taborsky M 2008 Sexual conflict over breeding substrate causes female expulsion and offspring loss in a cichlid fish; Behav. Ecol. 19 302–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson D, Shine R and How R 2002 Sex-specific niche partitioning and sexual size dimorphism in Australian pythons (Morelia spilota imbricata); Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 77 113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prenter J, Elwood R W and Montgomery W I 1999 Sexual size dimorphism and reproductive investment by female spiders: a comparative analysis; Evolution 53 1987–1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyron M, Fincel M and Dang M 2007 Sexual size dimorphism and ecomorphology of spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) from the Wabash River Watershed; J Freshwater Ecol. 22 687–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Raihani G, Székely T, Serrano-Meneses M A, Pitra C and Goriup P 2006 The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae); Anim. Behav. 71 833–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensch B 1950 Die Abhangigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Korpergroße. Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 1 58–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznick D N and Endler J A 1982 The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata); Evolution 36 160–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato T 1994 Active accumulation of spawning substrate: a determinant of extreme polygyny in a shell-brooding cichlid; Anim. Behav. 48 669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato T and Gashagaza M M 1997 Shell-brooding cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika: their habitats and mating systems; in Fish communities in Lake Tanganyika (eds) H Kawanabe, M Hori and M Nagoshi (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press) pp 219–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato T, Hirose M, Taborsky M and Kimura S 2004 Size-dependent male alternative reproductive tactics in the shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus in Lake Tanganyika; Ethology 110 49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz D and Taborsky M 2000 Giant males or dwarf females: what determines the extreme sexual size dimorphism in Lamprologus callipterus?; J. Fish. Biol. 57 1254–1265

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz D and Taborsky M 2005 The influence of sexual selection and ecological constraints on an extreme sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid; Anim. Behav. 70 539–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz D, Parker G A, Taborsky M and Sato T 2006 An optimality approach to male and female body sizes in an extremely size-dimorphic cichlid fish; Evol. Ecol. Res. 8 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Shine R 1989 Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence; Q. Rev. Biol. 64 419–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Székely T, Freckleton R P and Reynolds J D 2004 Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 12224–12227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker S P W and McCormick M I 2009 Sexual selection explains sex-specific growth plasticity and positive allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a reef fish; Proc. R. Soc. London B 276 3335–3343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young K A 2005 Life-history variation and allometry for sexual size dimorphism in Pacific salmon and trout; Proc. R. Soc. London B 272 167–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuma M, Narita T, Hori M and Kondo T 1998 Food resources of shrimp-eating cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika; Env. Biol. Fish. 52 371–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsu Sato.

Additional information

Supplementary movie pertaining to this article is available on the Journal of Biosciences Website at http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/June2010/pp257-265/suppl.pdf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ota, K., Kohda, M. & Sato, T. Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females. J Biosci 35, 257–265 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-010-0030-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-010-0030-6

Keywords

Navigation