Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 345–354 | Cite as

The effect of perceived female parasite load on post-copulatory male choice in a sex-role-reversed pipefish

  • Charlyn Partridge
  • Ingrid Ahnesjö
  • Charlotta Kvarnemo
  • Kenyon B. Mobley
  • Anders Berglund
  • Adam G. Jones
Original Paper

Abstract

The last several decades of research in behavioral ecology have resulted in a deeper appreciation of post-mating processes and sexual conflict in sexual selection. One of the most controversial aspects of sexual selection is cryptic mate choice. Here, we take advantage of male pregnancy in a sex-role-reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle) to quantify cryptic choice based on perceived parasite load and other sources of variance in female fitness. Studies have shown that S. typhle males preferentially mate with females with lower parasite loads and that a male’s perception of female parasite load can be altered by tattooing females. We manipulated the apparent parasite load of females in controlled mating experiments to test the hypothesis that post-copulatory sexual selection is dependent on a male’s perception of female parasite load in pipefish. Our results provided no evidence for cryptic male choice based on perceived female parasite load. However, we found evidence that eggs from larger females were more likely to result in viable offspring than eggs from smaller females and that the first female to mate with a male transferred more eggs per copulation on average. Overall, our results show that potential for post-copulatory sexual selection does exist in pipefish, but the male’s perception of female parasite load does not play a major role in this process.

Keywords

Cryptic choice Microsatellites Pipefish Post-copulatory behavior Sexual selection Sperm competition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Rintakoski and M. Raimondo for help in the field and J. Andersson for help with tattoo techniques and equipment. A. Billing, S. Robinson-Wolrath, and G. Rosenqvist provided help with the field and husbandry aspects of this project. Also, we thank Kristineberg Marine Research Station and Klubban Research Station for the use of their facilities. Inez Johansson Foundation (IA), Swedish Research Council (AB and CK), and the National Science Foundation (AGJ) provided funding for this work. This research was approved by Texas A&M University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (AUP2004-204).

References

  1. Ahnesjö I (1992a) Consequences of male brood care—weight and number of newborn in a sex-role reversed pipefish. Funct Ecol 6:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahnesjö I (1992b) Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle L. J Fish Biol 41b:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahnesjö I (1996) Apparent resource competition among embryos in the brood pouch of a male pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measure of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (1993) Selective males and ardent females in pipefishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:331–336Google Scholar
  6. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2003) Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Study Behav 32:131–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986a) Reversed sex role and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986b) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1988) Multiple mating and paternal brood care in the pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Oikos 51:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1989) Reproductive success of female limited by males in two pipefish species. Am Nat 133:506–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkhead TR (2000) Defining and demonstrating postcopulatory female choice—again. Evolution 54:1057–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Reviews Genetics 3:262–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bussière LF, Hunt J, Jennions M, Brooks R (2006) Sexual conflict and cryptic female choice in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 60:782–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carcupino M, Baldacci A, Mazzini M, Franzoi P (2002) Functional significance of the male brood pouch in the reproductive strategies of pipefishes and seahorses: a morphological and ultrastructural comparative study on three anatomically different pouches. J Fish Biol 61:1465–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawson CE (1985) Indo-Pacific Pipefishes. Allen Press, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  18. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberhard WG (2000) Criteria for demonstrating postcopulatory female choice. Evolution 54:1047–1050PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Eberhard WG (2004) Why study spider sex: special traits of spiders facilitate studies of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. J Arachnol 32:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edvardsson M, Arnqvist G (2000) Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in red flour beetles Tribolium castaneum. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gowaty PA (1997) Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in mating behavior. In: Gowaty PA (ed) Feminism and evolutionary biology. Chapman, New York, pp 351–384Google Scholar
  24. Gronlund CJ, Deangelis MD, Pruett-Jones S, Ward PS, Coyne JA (2002) Mate grasping in Drosophila pegasa. Behaviour 139:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haresign TW, Shumway SE (1981) Permeability of the marsupium of the pipefish Syngnathus fuscus to [14C]-alpha amino isobutyric acid. Comp Biochem Physiol A 69:603–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones AG (2002) The evolution of alternative cryptic female choice strategies in age-structured populations. Evolution 56:2530–2536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones AG, Avise JC (1997) Polygynandry in the dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae revealed by microsatellite DNA markers. Evolution 51:1611–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones AG, Avise JC (2003) Male pregnancy. Current Biol 13:R791–R791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC (1999) The genetic mating system of a sex-role reversed pipefish (Syngnathus typhle): a molecular inquiry. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Avise JC (2005) The measurement of sexual selection using Bateman’s Principles: an experimental test in the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Integr Comp Bio 45:874–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kempenaers B, Foerster K, Questiau S, Robertson BC, Vermeirssen ELM (2000) Distinguishing between female sperm choice verses male sperm competition: a comment on Birkhead. Evolution 54:1050–1052PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolm N (2001) Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2229–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazzi D (2004) Parasites make male pipefish careless. J Evol Biol 17:519–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller L, Kapuschinski A (1996) Notes: microsatellite DNA markers reveal new levels of genetic variance in Northern Pike. Trans Am Fish Soc 124:971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otronen M (1990) Mating behavior and sperm competition in the fly, Dryomiza anilis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pilastro A, Evans JP, Sartorelli S, Bisazza A (2002) Male phenotype predicts insemination success in guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1325–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pilastro A, Simonato M, Bisazza A, Evans JP (2004) Cryptic female preference for colorful males in guppies. Evolution 58:665–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pitnick S, Brown WD (2000) Criteria for demonstrating female sperm choice. Evolution 54:1052–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quast WD, Howe NR (1980) The osmotic role of the brood pouch in the pipefish Syngnathus scovelli. Comp Biochem Physiol A 67:675–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenqvist G, Johansson K (1995) Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim Behav 49:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandvik M, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A (2000) Male and female mate choice affects offspring quality in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2151–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sheldon B (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanism and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 15:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snook RR (2005) Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 20:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stölting KN, Wilson AB (2007) Male pregnancy in seahorses and pipefish: beyond the mammalian model. BioEssays 29:884–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tallamy DW, Powell BE, McClafferty JA (2002) Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav Ecol 12:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Telford SR, Jennions MD (1998) Establishing cryptic female choice in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 13:216–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (1992) Pipefish and seahorses: are they all sex role reversed? Trends Ecol Evol 7:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A (1994) Operational sex ratios and behavioural sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wade MJ, Arnold SJ (1980) The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice and sperm precedence. Anim Behav 28:446–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ward PI (2000) Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). Evolution 54:1680–1686PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Watanabe S, Kaneko T, Watanabe Y (1999) Immunocytochemical detection of mitochondria-rich cells in the brood pouch epithelium of the pipefish, Syngnathus schelegeli: structural comparison with mitochondria-rich cells in the gills and larval epidermis. Cell Tissue Res 295:141–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson AB, Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Meyer A (2001) Male pregnancy in seahorses and pipefishes (Family Syngnathidae): rapid diversification of paternal brood pouch morphology inferred from a molecular phylogeny. J Hered 92:159–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent A, Meyer A (2003) The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374–1386PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlyn Partridge
    • 1
  • Ingrid Ahnesjö
    • 2
  • Charlotta Kvarnemo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kenyon B. Mobley
    • 1
    • 5
  • Anders Berglund
    • 2
  • Adam G. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolution/Animal EcologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  5. 5.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations