Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 6, pp 1169–1177 | Cite as

The effect of maternal body size on embryo survivorship in the broods of pregnant male pipefish

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

Abstract

The occurrence of male pregnancy in the family Syngnathidae (seahorses, pipefishes, and sea dragons) provides an exceptionally fertile system in which to investigate issues related to the evolution of parental care. Here, we take advantage of this unique reproductive system to study the influence of maternal body size on embryo survivorship in the brood pouches of pregnant males of the broad-nosed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Males were mated with either two large females, two small females, a large then a small female, or a small then a large female. Our results show that offspring survivorship depends on an interaction between female body size and the number of eggs transferred by the female. Eggs of larger females deposited in large numbers are more likely to result in viable offspring than eggs of smaller females laid in large numbers. However, when females deposited smaller numbers of eggs, the eggs from smaller females were more likely to produce viable offspring compared to those from larger females. We found no evidence that this result was based on mating order, the relative sizes of competing females, or egg characteristics such as dry weight of eggs. Additionally, male body size did not significantly influence the survivorship of offspring during brooding. Our results suggest that the factors underlying offspring survivorship in pipefish may be more complex than previously believed, with multiple factors interacting to determine the fitness of individual offspring within the broods of pregnant males.

Keywords

Brood reduction Clutch size Parental care Sibling competition Sexual selection Syngnathidae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Zach Cress, Laila Fröberg, Kenan Matterson, and Emma Planes for their extensive help with various aspects of this project. We are also grateful to Anna Billing, Inês Braga Gonçalves, Sarah Robinson-Wolrath, Gunilla Rosenqvist, and Tanja Strand for providing help with the field and husbandry aspects of this project. Jon Wright, Michael Jennions, and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Also, we thank Kristineberg Marine Research Station and Klubban Research Station for the use of their facilities. Special thanks to Kristina Kruse, Joan Rowe, and the staff at the Nevada Genomics Center (Reno, NV, USA) for microsatellite technical support. This work was supported by Inez Johansson Foundation (IA), the Swedish Research Council to CK and AB, and the National Science Foundation to AGJ and KBM. All experiments were conducted in agreement with Swedish (permit number 103-2002; 68-2005) and American legislation on animal welfare.

References

  1. Ahnesjö I (1992) 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 (1995) Temperature affects male and female potential reproductive rates differently in the sex-role reversed pipefish, Syngnathus typhle. Behav Ecol 6:229–233CrossRefGoogle 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. Berglund A (2000) Sex role reversal in a pipefish: female ornaments as amplifying handicaps. Ann Zool Fenn 37:1–13Google Scholar
  5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2001) Male pipefish prefer ornamented females. Anim Behav 61:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2003) Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Stud Behav 32:131–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1988) Multiple matings and paternal brood care in the pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Oikos 51:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernardo J (1996) The particular maternal effect of propagule size, especially egg size: patterns, models, quality of evidence and interpretations. Am Zool 36:216–236Google Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga Gonçalves I, Mobley KB, Ahnesjö I, Sagebakken G, Jones AG, Kvarnemo C (2010) Reproductive compensation in broad-nosed pipefish females. Proc R Soc B 277:1581–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman SW, Harlin-Cognato A, Jones AG (2009) Reproductive isolation, reproductive mode, and sexual selection: empirical tests of the viviparity-driven conflict hypothesis. Am Nat 173:291–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Einum S, Fleming IA (2002) Does within-population variation in fish egg size reflect maternal influences on optimal values? Am Nat 160:756–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Einum S, Hendry AP, Fleming IA (2002) Egg-size evolution in aquatic environments: does oxygen availability constrain size? Proc R Soc B 269:2325–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García-González F, Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J Evol Biol 18:1097–1103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. García-González F, Simmons LW (2007) Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr Biol 17:32–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert JDJ, Manica A (2010) Parental care trade-offs and life-history relationships in insects. Am Nat 176:212–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gowaty PA, Anderson WW, Bluhm CK, Drickamer LC, Kim YK, Moore AJ (2007) The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15023–15027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Jones AG, Avise JC (1997) Polygynandry in the dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae revealed by microsatellite DNA markers. Evolution 51:1611–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Kolm N, Ahnesjö I (2005) Do egg size and parental care coevolve in fishes? J Fish Biol 66:1499–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolm N, Goodwin NB, Balshine S, Reynolds JD (2006) Life history evolution in cichlids 2: directional evolution of the trade-off between egg number and egg size. J Evol Biol 19:76–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leiner VM (1934) Der osmotische druck in den bruttaschen der Syngnathiden. Zoo Anz 108:278–298Google Scholar
  27. Linton JR, Soloff BL (1964) The physiology of the brood pouch of the male seahorse (Hippocampus erectus). Bull Mar Sci Gulf Car 14:45–61Google Scholar
  28. Miller LM, Kapuscinski AR (1996) Microsatellite DNA markers reveal new levels of genetic variation in northern pike. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mock DW, Parker GA (1997) The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Mock DW, Parker GA (1998) Siblicide, family conflict and the evolutionary limits of selfishness. Anim Behav 56:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paczolt KA, Jones AG (2010) Postcopulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464:401–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker GA, Begon M (1986) Optimal egg size and clutch size: effects of environment and maternal phenotype. Am Nat 128:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Partridge C, Shardo J, Boettcher A (2007) Osmoregulatory role of the brood pouch in the euryhaline Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 147:556–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Partridge C, Ahnesjö I, Kvarnemo C, Mobley KB, Berglund A, Jones AG (2009) The effect of perceived female parasite load on post-copulatory male choice in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quast WD, Howe NR (1980) The osmotic role of the brood pouch in the pipefish Syngnathus scovelli. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 67:675–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qvarnström A, Price TD (2001) Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 16:95–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ripley JL, Foran CM (2006) Differential parental nutrient allocation in two congeneric pipefish species (Syngnathidae: Syngnathus spp.). J Exp Biol 209:1112–1121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ripley JL, Foran CM (2009) Direct evidence for embryonic uptake of paternally-derived nutrients in two pipefishes (Syngnathidae: Syngnathus spp.). J Comp Physiol B 179:325–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rispoli VF, Wilson AB (2008) Sexual size dimorphism predicts the frequency of multiple mating in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. J Evol Biol 21:30–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenqvist G, Johansson K (1995) Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim Behav 49:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sagebakken G, Ahnesjö I, Mobley KB, Braga Gonçalves I, Kvarnemo C (2010) Brooding fathers, not siblings, take up nutrients from embryos. Proc R Soc B 277:971–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silva K, Vieira MN, Almada VC, Monteiro NM (2008) Can the limited marsupium space be a limiting factor for Syngnathus abaster females? Insights from a population with size-assortative mating. J Anim Ecol 77:390–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Heinemann, London, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  44. Vincent A, Ahnesjo I, Berglund A (1994) Operational sex ratios and behavioral sex differences in a pipefish population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watanabe S, Kaneko T, Watanabe Y (1999) Immunocytochemical detection of mitochondria-rich cells in the brood pouch epithelium of the pipefish, Syngnathus schlegeli: structural comparison with mitochondria-rich cells in the gills and larval epidermis. Cell Tissue Res 295:141–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeh DW, Zeh JA (2000) Reproductive mode and speciation: the viviparity-driven conflict hypothesis. Bioessays 22:938–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenyon B. Mobley
    • 1
    • 4
  • Charlotta Kvarnemo
    • 2
  • Ingrid Ahnesjö
    • 3
  • Charlyn Partridge
    • 1
    • 5
  • Anders Berglund
    • 3
  • Adam G. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and GeneticsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  5. 5.Department of Anatomy & NeurobiologyWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations