Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 27–32

Allopaternal care in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: females prefer males with eggs

  • L. M. Unger
  • R. C. Sargent
Article
  • 148 Downloads

Summary

Some species of fishes with exclusive male parental care exhibit the phenomenon of allopaternal care; that is, some males acquire and care for other males' eggs. We conducted a series of experiments to investigate the dynamics and evolution of allopaternal care in one such species, the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). In choosing a nest site, a newly reproductive male tended to take over the nest site of a parental male by evicting the resident male, rather than occupy a physically identical empty nest site. The new male generally cared for the old male's eggs, and in most cases, daily egg survival improved under the new male's care. When males were given a choice among unguarded nest sites, they preferred to occupy nest sites already containing eggs. When eggs were randomly assigned to nesting males, females preferred to spawn with males who had eggs in their nest sites. Thus, it appears that female preference for males with eggs led to the evolution of allopaternal care in the fathead minnow.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold SJ (1983) Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge, pp 67–107Google Scholar
  2. Assem J van den (1967) Territory in the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L., an experimental study in intra-specific aggression. Behaviour (Suppl) 16:1–164Google Scholar
  3. Blumer LS (1979) Male parental care in bony fishes. Quart Rev Biol 54:149–161Google Scholar
  4. Blumer LS (1982) A bibiography and categorization of bony fishes exhibiting parental care. Zool J Linn Soc (London) 76:1–22Google Scholar
  5. Branson BA (1962) Observations on the breeding tubercles of some Ozarkian minnows with notes on the barbels of Hybopsis. Copeia 1962:532–539Google Scholar
  6. Constanz GD (1985) Allopaternal care in the tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi (Pisces: Percidae). Environ Biol Fishes 14:175–183Google Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Downhower JF, Brown L (1980) Mate preference of female mottled sculpins, Cottus bairdi. Anim Behav 28:728–734Google Scholar
  9. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distributions in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19:16–36Google Scholar
  10. Gross MR (1980) Sexual selection and the evolution of reproductive strategies in sunfishes (Lepomis: Centrarchidae). PhD Dissertation, University of UtahGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross MR, McMillan AM (1981) Predation and evolution of colonial nesting in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:163–174Google Scholar
  12. Gross MR, Sargent RC (1985) The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes. Am Zool 25:807–822Google Scholar
  13. Gross MR, Shine R (1981) Parental care and mode of fertilization in ectothermic vertebrates. Evolution 35:775–793Google Scholar
  14. Isaak D (1961) The ecological life history of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Rafinesque). PhD Dissertation, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  15. Marconato A, Bisazza A (1986) Males whols nests contain eggs are preferred by female Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae). Anim Behav 34:1580–1582Google Scholar
  16. McKaye KR, McKaye NM (1977) Communal care and the kidnapping of young by parental cichlids. Evolution 31:674–681Google Scholar
  17. McMillan VE, Smith RJF (1974) Agonistic and reproductive behaviour of the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Z Tierpsychol 34:25–58Google Scholar
  18. Ramaswami LS, Halser AD (1955) Harmones and secondary sex characters in the fathead minnow, Hyborynchus. Physiol Zool 28:62–68Google Scholar
  19. Ridley M, Rechten C (1981) Female sticklebacks prefer to spawn with males whose nests contain eggs. Behaviour 76:152–161Google Scholar
  20. Rohwer S (1978) Parental cannibalism of offspring and egg raiding as a courtship strategy. Am Nat 112:429–440Google Scholar
  21. Sargent RC (1988) Paternal care and egg survival both increase with clutch size in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:33–37Google Scholar
  22. Sargent RC (1982) Territory quality, male quality, courtship intrusions, and female nest-choice in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 30:364–374Google Scholar
  23. Sargent RC, Gebler JB (1980) Effects of nest site concealment on hatching success, reproductive success, and paternal behavior of the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:137–142Google Scholar
  24. Sargent RC, Gross MR (1986) Williams' principle: an explanation of parental care in teleost fishes. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, Beckenham pp 275–293Google Scholar
  25. Smith RJF (1974) Effects of 17-methyltestosterone on the dorsal pad and tubercles of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Can J Zool 52:1031–1038Google Scholar
  26. Smith RJF, Murphy BD (1974) Functional morphology of the dorsal pad in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Trans Am Fish Soc 103:65–72Google Scholar
  27. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1980) Statistical methods. Iowa State University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Trautman MB (1957) The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Unger LM (1983) Nest defense by deceit in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:125–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Unger
    • 1
  • R. C. Sargent
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology Research Group, T.H. Morgan School of Biological SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations