Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 287–293 | Cite as

Habitat selection and subsequent reproductive success in the beaugregory damselfish

  • Murray Itzkowitz
Full Papers


Male beaugregory damselfish,Stegastes leucostictus, were provided with three types of artificial breeding structures to determine if they change habitats based on past or future reproductive payoffs. All three site types quickly lured males away from their natural sites. In comparison to those living on natural sites, those using artificial sites were less likely to move to different areas and had a higher reproductive success. When given no choice, male reproductive success was correlated to structural type. A second experiment provided males with an additional structure after using the intermediate quality type for 2 months. Males would often initially use both sites but would eventually shift their spawning activity to the new site if it was of the same quality or better than the old one. However, males would not move if the new site was of inferior quality. When given a new site identical to the initial one, approximately half of the males shifted to the new site. There was no evidence that reproductive performance influenced a male's decision to use a new site.

Key words

Stegastes leucostictus Territory Habitat quality Habitat selection Reproduction Coral reef fish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Bartels, P.J. 1984. Extra-territorial movement of a perennially territorial damselfish,Eupomacentrus dorsopunicans. Behaviour 91: 312–320.Google Scholar
  2. Bisazza, A. & A. Marconato. 1988. Female mate choice, male-male competition and parental care in the river bullhead,Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae). Anim. Behav. 36: 1352–1360.Google Scholar
  3. Bradbury, J.W. & R.M. Gibson. 1983 Leks and mate choice. pp. 109–138.In: P. Bateson (ed.) Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Brawley, S.N. & W.H. Adey. 1977. Territorial behavior of the three-spot damselfish,Eupomacentrus planifrons, increases reef algal biomass and productivity. Env. Biol. Fish. 2: 45–51.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J.L. 1964. The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull. 76: 160–169.Google Scholar
  6. Hastings, P.A. 1988. Female choice and male reproductive success in the angel blenny,Coralliozetus angelica (Teleostei: Chaenopsidae). Anim. Behav. 36: 115–124.Google Scholar
  7. Hixon, M.A. & W.N. Brostoff. 1983. Damselfish as keystone species in reverse intermediate disturbance and diversity of reef algae. Science 220: 511–213.Google Scholar
  8. Holm, C.M. 1973. Breeding sex ratios, territoriality, and reproductive success in the red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius rhoeniccus). Ecology 54: 356–365.Google Scholar
  9. Itzkowitz, M. 1977. Female mate choice in the pupfish,Cyprinodon variegatus. Behav. Processes 3: 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Itzkowitz, M. 1985. Aspects of the population dynamics and reproductive success in the permanently territorial beaugregory damselfish. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 12: 57–69.Google Scholar
  11. Itzkowitz, M. & D. Makie. 1986. Habitat structure and reproductive success in the beaugregory damselfish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 97: 305–312.Google Scholar
  12. Irvine, G.V. 1980. Fish as farmers: an experimental study of herbivory in a territorial coral reef damselfish,Eupomacentrus planifrons. Amer. Zool. 20: 822.Google Scholar
  13. Kodric-Brown, A. 1983. Determinants of male reproductive success in pupfish (Cyprinodon pecosensis). Anim. Behav. 31: 128–137.Google Scholar
  14. Lenington, S. 1980. Female choice and polygyny in redwinged blackbirds. Anim. Behav. 28: 347–361.Google Scholar
  15. Leonard, M.I. & J. Pickman. 1988. Mate choice by marsh wrens: the influence of male territory quality. Anim. Behav. 38: 517–528.Google Scholar
  16. Lightbody, J.P. & P.J. Weatherhead. 1987. Polygyny in the yellow-headed blackbird—female choice versus male competition. Anim. Behav. 35: 1670–1684.Google Scholar
  17. Lill, A. 1974. Social organization and space utilization in the lek-forming white-bearded manakin,M. manacus trinitatis. Z. Tierpsychol. 36: 513–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Orians, G.H. 1961. The evolution of blackbird (Agelaius) social systems. Ecol. Monogr. 31: 189–220.Google Scholar
  19. Orians, G.H. 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Amer. Nat. 103: 347–361.Google Scholar
  20. Pleszczyńska, W.K. 1978. Microgeographic prediction of polygyny in lark bunting. Science 201: 935–937.Google Scholar
  21. Schmale, M. 1981. Sexual selection and reproductive success in males of the bicolor damselfish,Eupomacentrus partitus. Anim. Behav. 29: 1172–1184.Google Scholar
  22. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York. 276 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Verner, J. & M.F. Willson. 1966. The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47: 143–147.Google Scholar
  24. Warner, R.R. 1987. Female choice of sites versus mates in a coral reef fish,Thalassoma bifasciatum. Anim. Behav. 35: 1470–1478.Google Scholar
  25. Wiley, R.H. 1973. Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse,Centrocercus urophasianus. Anim. Behav. Monogr. 6: 87–169.Google Scholar
  26. Yasukawa, K. 1981. Male quality and female choice of mate in the red-winged blackbird,Agelaius rhoeniccus. Ecology 62: 922–930.Google Scholar
  27. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd Edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 620 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murray Itzkowitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations