Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 97, Issue 12, pp 1113–1116 | Cite as

Why are reproductively parasitic fish males so small?—influence of tactic-specific selection

  • Kazutaka Ota
  • Masanori Kohda
  • Tetsu Sato
Short Communication

Abstract

Despite the wide prevalence of alternative reproductive tactics, little attention has been paid to why reproductively parasitic males are so small. In this study, we tackled this issue in a shell-brooding fish Lamprologus callipterus. Sneaky ‘dwarf males’ of this fish remain much smaller than bourgeois conspecifics throughout their life and employ a unique parasitic tactic, i.e. entering into a gastropod shell where a female is spawning, passing through the space between the female and shell wall and staying behind her to ejaculate throughout the spawning event. Here, we tested the prediction that they remain small to get past her through the shell spaces by interpopulation comparison. We showed, across populations, a negative allometry for sexual size dimorphism, an exponential increase of female size with an increase in shell size and a negative correlation between the magnitude of sexual size dimorphism and shell size. These results suggest that the inner spaces strongly regulate dwarf male size. We conclude that the small bodies of dwarf males arise from adaptation to their unique reproductive behaviour.

Keywords

Alternative reproductive tactics Shell size availability Sexual size allometry Size limitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Japanese Research Team for all their help, and Michael Taborsky, Stefan Walker, Wolf U. Blanckenhorn and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. This work was supported partly by a Research Fellowship from JSPS for Young Scientists to K.O., an Overseas Scientific Research grant to M.K. and a Global COE program (MEXT).

References

  1. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75:385–407. doi: 10.1086/393620 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fairbairn DJ (2005) Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: testing two hypotheses for Rensch's rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Am Nat 116:S69–S84. doi: 10.1086/444600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gross MR (1985) Disruptive selection for alternative life histories in salmon. Nature 313:47–48. doi: 10.1038/313047a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gross MR, Charnov EL (1980) Alternative male life histories in bluegill sunfish. Proc Natl Acad Sci 77:6937–6940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nevado B, Koblmüller S, Sturmbauer C, Snoeks J, Usano-Alemany J, Verheyen E (2009) Complete mitochondrial DNA replacement in a Lake Tanganyika cichlid fish. Mol Ecol 18:4240–4255. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04348.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ota K, Kohda M, Sato T (2010) Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females. J Biosci 35:257–265. doi: 10.1007/s12038-010-0030-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pilastro A, Giacomello E, Bisazza A (1997) Sexual selection for small size in male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1125–1129. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sato T, Hirose M, Taborsky M, Kimura S (2004) Size-dependent male alternative reproductive tactics in the shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus in Lake Tanganyika. Ethology 110:49–62. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00944.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schütz D, Taborsky M (2005) The influence of sexual selection and ecological constraints on an extreme sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid. Anim Behav 70:539–554. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schütz D, Parker GA, Taborsky M, Sato T (2006) An optimality approach to male and female body sizes in an extremely size-dimorphic cichlid fish. Evol Ecol Res 8:1–16Google Scholar
  12. Schütz D, Pachler G, Ripmeester E, Goffinet O, Taborsky M (2010) Reproductive investment of giants and dwarfs: specialized tactics in a cichlid fish with alternative male morphs. Fuct Ecol 24:131–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01605.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shapiro D, Marconato A, Yoshikawa T (1994) Sperm economy in a coral reef fish, Thalassoma bifasciatum. Ecology 75:1334–1344. doi: 10.2307/1937458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stoltz JA, Neff BD (2006) Male size and mating tactic influence proximity to females during sperm competition in bluegill sunfish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:811–818. doi: 10.1007/s00265-005-0127-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Svensson O, Kvarnemo C (2007) Parasitic spawning in sand gobies: an experimental assessment of nest-opening size, sneaker male cues, paternity, and filial cannibalism. Behav Ecol 18:410–441. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arl098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Taborsky M (2001) The evolution of bourgeois, parasitic, and cooperative reproductive behaviors in fishes. J Hered 92:100–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomaz D, Bell E, Burke T (1997) Alternative reproductive tactics in Atlantic salmon: factors affecting mature parr success. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:219–226. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and GeosciencesOsaka City UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of Tourism and Environmental StudiesNagano UniversityNaganoJapan

Personalised recommendations