Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 46–51 | Cite as

Sexual selection for male parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus

  • Kai Lindström
  • Colette M. St. Mary
  • Christophe Pampoulie
Original Article


Male parental care is typically thought to come at a cost to mate attraction and future mating success. However, it has also been hypothesized that paternal care may be under sexual, as well as natural, selection, such that good fathers actually attract more mates. Here we show experimentally that in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus, females prefer to mate with males that provide higher levels of parental care. We manipulated male behavior using (1) different nest sizes and (2) an application of low-O2 water in the nests, and found that females consistently preferred males with elevated levels of care in dichotomous mate choice tests. This complements our earlier study in which we showed that males increase the amount and quality of care they provide in the presence of females. Our results demonstrate that male care may have evolved as a result of sexual selection rather than natural selection alone, and furthermore, that male care may not necessarily be in conflict with mate attraction.


Life-history trade-offs Mate choice Egg fanning Nest size Low O2 


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Baylis JR (1981) The evolution of parental care in fishes, with reference to Darwin's rule of male sexual selection. Environ Biol Fishes 6:223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton Univ. Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Forsgren E (1997) Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264:1283–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman-Gallant CR (1997) Parentage and paternal care: consequences of intersexual selection in Savannah sparrows? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gross MR (2005) The evolution of parental care. Q Rev Biol 80:37–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A, Sheldon BC (1995) Trade-offs between life-history traits and a secondary sexual character in male collared flycatchers. Nature 375:311–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoelzer GA (1989) The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1999) Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol 200:97–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jamieson IG (1995) Do female fish prefer to spawn in nests with eggs for reasons of mate choice copying or egg survival? Am Nat 145:824–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones JC, Reynolds JD (1999) Costs of egg ventilation for male common gobies breeding in conditions of low dissolved oxygen. Anim Behav 57:181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirkpatrick M (1985) Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the “sexy son”. Am Nat 125:788–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knapp RA, Kovach JT (1991) Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Behav Ecol 2:230–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kunzler R, Bakker TCM (2000) Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lissåker M, Kvarnemo C, Svensson O (2003) Effects of a low oxygen environment on parental effort and filial cannibalism in the male sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol 14:374–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Magrath MJL, Komdeur J (2003) Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity? Trends Ecol Evol 18:424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Östlund S, Ahnesjö I (1998) Female fifteen-spined sticklebacks prefer better fathers. Anim Behav 56:1177–1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pampoulie C, Lindström K, St. Mary CM (2004) Have your cake and eat it too: male sand gobies show more parental care in the presence of female partners. Behav Ecol 15:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Qvarnström A, Griffith SC, Gustafsson L (2000) Male–male competition and parental care in collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis): an experiment controlling for differences in territory quality. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:2547–2552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sargent RC, Gross MR (1993) William's principle: an explanation of parental care in teleost fishes. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 333–361Google Scholar
  22. Sheldon BC (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tallamy DW (2000) Sexual selection and the evolution of exclusive paternal care in arthropods. Anim Behav 60:559–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tallamy DW (2001) Evolution of exclusive paternal care in arthopods. Ann Rev Entomol 46:139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  26. Westneat DF, Sargent RC (1996) Sex and parenting: the effects of sexual conflict and parentage on parental strategies. Trends Ecol Evol 11:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Lindström
    • 1
  • Colette M. St. Mary
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christophe Pampoulie
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Marine Research InstituteReykjavikIceland

Personalised recommendations