Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 8, pp 1309–1316 | Cite as

Status-dependent and strategic growth adjustments in female cooperative cichlids

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Male group-living cichlids show status and strategic adjustments in growth, but females appear not to show these growth adjustments. Here, an experimental study in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher elaborates on these findings. Females did not show status-dependent growth: (1) Growth in females decelerated with body size but did not depend on social status (breeder or helper), and (2) female helpers did not increase their growth rate after becoming a breeder. Females showed limited evidence for strategic growth: (3) Female helpers did not significantly adjust their growth rate depending on the treatments (comparing female helpers living in groups with a small or a large breeder female); but within the small breeder female treatment, helper growth was significantly related to their body size difference (breeder size–helper size), suggesting a strong non-linear effect of size differences on female helper growth. I conclude that these female cichlids show no status-dependent growth and only strategic growth adjustments when the size difference between the helper female and her breeder female is particularly small.

Keywords

Reproductive competition Cooperative breeding Dominance Body size Growth rate Status-dependent growth Strategic growth Cichlidae 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I thank R. Schürch and E. Jutzeler for their help, support and discussions throughout this project. I thank the referees for their comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by SNF Grant 3100A0-108473.

References

  1. Ali M, Nicieza A, Wootton RJ (2003) Compensatory growth in fishes: a response to growth depression. Fish & Fisheries 4:147–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubin-Horth N, Desjardins JK, Martei YM, Balshine S, Hofmann HA (2007) Masculinized dominant females in a cooperatively breeding species. Mol Ecol 16:1349–1358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Awata S, Kohda M (2004) Parental roles and the amount of care in a bi-parental substrate brooding cichlid: the effect of size differences within pairs. Behaviour 141:1135–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Awata S, Munehara H, Kohda M (2005) Social system and reproduction of helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid fish (Julidochromis ornatus) in Lake Tanganyika: field observations and parentage analyses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:506–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awata S, Heg D, Munehara H, Kohda M (2006) Testis size depends on social status and the presence of male helpers in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Julidochromis ornatus. Behav Ecol 17:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balshine-Earn S, Neat FC, Reid H, Taborsky M (1998) Paying to stay or paying to breed? Field evidence for direct benefits of helping behavior in a cooperatively breeding fish. Behav Ecol 9:432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender N, Heg D, Hamilton IM, Bachar Z, Taborsky M, Oliveira RF (2006) The relationship between social status, behaviour, growth and steroids in male helpers and breeders of a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Horm Behav 50:173–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergmüller R, Taborsky M (2005) Experimental manipulation of helping in a cooperative breeder: helpers ‘pay to stay’ by pre-emptive appeasement. Anim Behav 69:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergmüller R, Heg D, Taborsky M (2005) Helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid stay and pay or disperse and breed, depending on ecological constraints. Proc R Soc London B 272:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer L, Heg D, Taborsky M (2005) Experimental evidence for helper effects in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behav Ecol 16:667–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchner AS, Sloman KA, Balshine S (2004) The physiological effects of social status in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher. J Fish Biol 65:1080–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buston P (2003) Size and growth modification in clownfish. Nature 424:145–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Buston P (2004) Does the presence of non-breeders enhance the fitness of breeders? An experimental analysis in the clown anemonefish Amphiprion percula. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desjardins JK, Hazelden MR, Van Der Kraak GJ, Balshine S (2006) Male and female cooperatively breeding fish provide support for the “Challenge Hypothesis”. Behav Ecol 17:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desjardins JK, Fitzpatrick JL, Stiver KA, Van Der Kraak GJ, Balshine S (2008a) Costs and benefits of polygyny in the cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher. Anim Behav 75:1771–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desjardins JK, Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick JL, Milligan N, Van Der Kraak GJ, Balshine S (2008b) Sex and status in a cooperative breeding fish: behavior and androgens. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:785–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dierkes P, Taborsky M, Achmann R (2008) Multiple paternity in the cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1582–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzpatrick JL, Desjardins JK, Stiver KA, Montgomerie R, Balshine S (2006) Male reproductive suppression in the cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulcher. Behav Ecol 17:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francis RC (1988) Socially mediated variation in growth rate of the midas cichlid: the primacy of early size differences. Anim Behav 36:1844–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fricke H, Fricke S (1977) Monogamy and sex change by aggressive dominance in coral reef fish. Nature 266:830–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton IM, Heg D (2007) Clutch-size adjustments and skew models: effects on reproductive partitioning and group stability. Behav Ecol 18:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton IM, Heg D (2008) Sex differences in the effect of social status on the growth of subordinates in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. J Fish Biol 72:1079–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton IM, Heg D, Bender N (2005) Size differences within a dominance hierarchy influence conflict and help in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behaviour 142:1591–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harwood AJ, Armstrong JD, Metcalfe NB, Griffiths SW (2003) Does dominance status correlate with growth in wild stream-dwelling Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? Behav Ecol 14:902–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heg D (2008) Reproductive suppression in female cooperatively breeding cichlids. Biol Lett 4:606–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Heg D, Bachar Z (2006) Cooperative breeding in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid Julidochromis ornatus. Environm Biol Fish 76:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heg D, Hamilton IM (2008) Tug-of-war over reproduction in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1249–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heg D, Bachar Z, Brouwer L, Taborsky M (2004a) Predation risk is an ecological constraint for helper dispersal in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Proc R Soc London B 271:2367–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heg D, Bender N, Hamilton I (2004b) Strategic growth decisions in helper cichlids. Proc R Soc London B 271:S505–S508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heg D, Bachar Z, Taborsky M (2005a) Cooperative breeding and group structure in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid Neolamprologus savoryi. Ethology 111:1017–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heg D, Brouwer L, Bachar Z, Taborsky M (2005b) Large group size yields group stability in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher. Behaviour 142:1615–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heg D, Bergmüller R, Bonfils D, Otti O, Bachar Z, Burri R, Heckel G, Taborsky M (2006) Cichlids do not adjust reproductive skew to the availability of independent breeding options. Behav Ecol 17:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heg D, Jutzeler E, Bonfils D, Mitchell JS (2008) Group composition affects male reproductive partitioning in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Mol Ecol 17:4359–4370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Heg D, Jutzeler E, Mitchell JS, Hamilton IM (2009) Helpful female subordinate cichlids are more likely to reproduce. PLoS ONE 4:e5458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofmann HA, Benson ME, Fernald RD (1999) Social status regulates growth rate: consequences for life-history strategies. Proc N Acad Sci USA 96:14171–14176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohda M, Shibata Y, Awata S, Gomagano D, Takeyama T, Hori M, Heg D (2008) Niche differentiation depends on body size in a cichlid fish: a model system of a community structured according to size regularities. J Anim Ecol 77:859–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kohler U (1998) Zur Struktur und Evolution des Sozialsystems von Neolamprologus multifasciatus (Cichlidae, Pisces), dem kleinsten Schneckenbuntbarsch des Tanganjikasees. Shaker Verlag, AachenGoogle Scholar
  38. Limberger D (1983) Pairs and harems in a cichlid fish, Lamprologus brichardi. Z Tierpsych 62:115–144Google Scholar
  39. Metcalfe NB, Monaghan P (2003) Growth versus lifespan: perspectives from evolutionary ecology. Exp Gerontol 38:935–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell JS (2003) Social correlates of reproductive success in false clown anemonefish: subordinate group members do not pay-to-stay. Evol Ecol Res 5:89–104Google Scholar
  41. Munday PL, Cardoni AM, Syms C (2006) Cooperative growth regulation in coral-dwelling fishes. Biol Lett 2:355–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Norusis MJ (2007) SPSS 15.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall, Upper Sadle RiverGoogle Scholar
  44. Royle NJ, Lindstrom J, Metcalfe NB (2005) A poor start in life negatively affects dominance status in adulthood independent of body size in green swordtails Xiphophorus helleri. Proc R Soc London B 272:1917–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schradin C, Lamprecht J (2000) Female-biased immigration and male peace-keeping in groups of the shell-dwelling cichlid fish Neolamprologus multifasciatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schradin C, Lamprecht J (2002) Causes of female emigration in the group-living cichlid fish Neolamprologus multifasciatus. Ethology 108:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sloman KA, Gilmour KM, Taylor AC, Metcalfe NB (2000) Physiological effects of dominance hierarchies within groups of brown trout, Salmo trutta, held under simulated natural conditions. Fish Physiol Biochem 22:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick J, Desjardins JK, Balshine S (2006) Sex differences in rates of territory joining and inheritance in a cooperatively breeding cichlid fish. Anim Behav 71:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick J, Desjardins JK, Balshine S (2009) Mixed parentage in Neolamprologus pulcher groups. J Fish Biol 74:1129–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taborsky M (1984) Broodcare helpers in the cichlid fish Lamprologus brichardi: their costs and benefits. Anim Behav 32:1236–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taborsky M, Limberger D (1981) Helpers in fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:143–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whiteman EA, Cote IM (2004) Dominance hierarchies in group-living cleaning gobies: causes and foraging consequences. Anim Behav 67:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wong MYL, Buston PM, Munday PL, Jones GP (2007) The threat of punishment enforces peaceful cooperation and stabilizes queues in a coral-reef fish. Proc R Soc London B 274:1093–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wong MYL, Buston PM, Munday PL, Jones GP (2008) Fasting or feasting in a fish social hierarchy. Curr Biol 18:R372–R373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernHinterkappelenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations