Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 933–941 | Cite as

Asymmetric sexual conflict over parental care in a biparental cichlid

Original Paper


Theoretical models predict that parents should adjust the amount of care both to their own and their partner’s body condition. In most biparental species, parental duties are switched repeatedly allowing for repeated mutual adjustment of the amount of care. In the mouthbrooding cichlid Eretmodus cyanostictus, terms are switched only once with females taking the first share. The timing of the shift of the clutch between mates strongly determines both partners’ brooding period and thereby their parental investment. Females signal their readiness to transfer the young several days before the male finally takes them, suggesting sexual conflict over the timing of the shift. In a lab experiment, we reduced the body condition of either the female or the male of a pair to test whether energy reserves affect the timing of the shift and whether female signalling behaviour depends on energetic state. Males with a lowered condition took the young later and incubated for a shorter period, which prolonged the incubation time of their female partners. When female condition was lowered, female and male incubation durations remained unchanged, although females signalled their readiness to shift more intensely. Our results suggest that males adjust their parental investment to own energy reserves but are unresponsive to their mate’s condition. Females appear to carry the entire costs for the male’s adjustment of care. We propose that intrinsic asymmetries in the scope for mutual adjustment of parental investment and the costs of negotiation crucially influence solutions of the conflict between sexes over care.


Sexual conflict Parental care Negotiation games Cichlids 


  1. Barta Z, Houston AI, McNamara JM, Székely T (2002) Sexual conflict about parental care: the role of reserves. Am Nat 159:687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Daan S, Dijkstra C, Tinbergen JM (1990) Family planning in the kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): the ultimate control of covariation of laying date and clutch size. Behaviour 114:83–116Google Scholar
  4. Golet GH, Irons DB (1999) Raising young reduces body condition and fat stores in black-legged kittiwakes. Oecologia 120:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grüter C, Taborsky B (2004) Mouthbrooding and biparental care: an unexpected combination, but male brood care pays. Anim Behav 68:1283–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grüter C, Taborsky B (2005) Sex ratio and the sexual conflict about brood care in a biparental mouthbrooder. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horak PS, Jenni-Eiermann S, Ots I (1999) Do great tits starve to reproduce? Oecologia 119:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Houston AI, Davies NB (1985) The evolution of cooperation and life history in the dunnock Prunella modularis. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 471–487Google Scholar
  9. Houston AI, Szekely T, McNamara JM (2005) Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol Evol 20:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Itzkowitz M, Draud MJ (1992) Conspecific intruders influence pair formation in a monogamous fish. Behav Processes 28:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuwamura T, Nagoshi M, Sato T (1989) Female-to-male shift of mouthbrooding in a cichlid fish, Tanganicodus irsacae, with notes on breeding habits of two related species in Lake Tanganyika. Env Biol Fishes 24:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Markman S, YomTov Y, Wright J (1995) Male parental care in the orange-tufted sunbird—behavioral adjustments in provisioning and nest guarding effort. Anim Behav 50:655–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Markman S, YomTov Y, Wright J (1996) The effect of male removal on female parental care in the orange-tufted sunbird. Anim Behav 52:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCormick MI, Hoey AS (2004) Larval growth history determines juvenile growth and survival in a tropical marine fish. Oikos 106:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McNamara JM, Gasson CE, Houston AI (1999) Incorporating rules for responding into evolutionary games. Nature 401:368–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. McNamara JM, Houston AI, Barta Z, Osorno J-L (2003) Should young ever be better off with one parent than with two? Behav Ecol 14:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mock DW, Fujioka M (1990) Monogamy and long-term pair bonding in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 5:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morley JI (2000) Intraspecific competition and monogamy in the cichlid fish, Eretmodus cyanostictus. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Morley JI, Balshine S (2002) Faithful fish: territory and mate defence favour monogamy in an African cichlid fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mrowka W (1982) Effect of removal on the parental care behaviour of the biparental cichlid Aequidens paraquayensis. Anim Behav 30:295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker GA, Royle NJ, Hartley IR (2002) Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanz JJ, Kranenbarg S, Tinbergen JM (2000) Differential response by males and females to manipulation of partner contribution in the great tit Parus major. J Anim Ecol 69:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schürch R, Taborsky B (2005) The functional significance of buccal feeding in the mouthbrooding cichlid Tropheus moorii. Behaviour 142:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith C, Wootton RJ (1995) The cost of parental care in teleost fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 5:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinegger M (2005) Sexual conflict over parental care and the function of female display behaviour in the biparental cichlid Eretmodus cyanostictus. Masters thesis, University of Bern, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Székely T, Cuthill IC (2000) Trade-off between mating opportunities and parental care: brood desertion by female Kentish plovers. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2087–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Székely T, Webb JN, Houston AI, McNamara JM (1996) An evolutionary approach to offspring desertion in birds. In: Nolan V Jr, Ketterson ED (eds) Current Ornithology, vol 13. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Taborsky B, Foerster K (2004) Female mouthbrooders adjust incubation duration to perceived risk of predation. Anim Behav 68:1275–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  30. Wright J, Cuthill I (1989) Manipulation of sex-differences in parental care. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yanagisawa Y, Sato T (1990) Active browsing by mouthbrooding females of Tropheus duboisi and Tropheus moorii (Cichlidae) to feed the young and/or themselves. Environ Biol Fish 27:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioural Ecology, Zoological InstituteUniversity of BernHinterkappelenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Evolution and Ecology ProgramIIASALaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations