Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 12, pp 1907–1916 | Cite as

Mate choice and male–male competition among morphologically cryptic but genetically divergent amphipod lineages

  • Matthias Galipaud
  • Zoé Gauthey
  • Jérémie Turlin
  • Loïc Bollache
  • Clément Lagrue
Original Article


Mate preference for conspecifics does not necessarily lead to assortative mating in cases where mating outcomes also depend on preferences based on mate quality and on individual competitiveness. We tested how such traits affected mate choice among genetically divergent lineages (called molecular operational taxonomic units; MOTU) of the amphipod Gammarus fossarum. We presented males with two females, including one from its own MOTU. Females also potentially differed in body size, and therefore fecundity, and in time before reproduction, two traits previously recognized as important in male mate choice. Males generally preferred females from their own MOTU when females originated from highly divergent MOTUs (17 % genetic divergence), but not when they were more closely related (3.5 % genetic divergence). Contrary to expectations, they did not prefer larger females, but they consistently paired with the female closest to reproduction. A second experiment involving duos of males of different MOTUs in competition for a female also revealed that males consistently won the competition over pairing with females of their own MOTU. Overall, these results reveal a strong influence of genetic divergence on mate recognition and reproductive isolation between sympatric MOTUs. However, male preference for females that are close to being available for reproduction also potentially results in hybridization among closely related MOTUs. We examine these results in the light of field mating patterns observed in a previous study of G. fossarum and discuss the importance of considering competitiveness and preferences for mate quality signals when studying evolutionary consequences of secondary contact between divergent lineages.


Assortative mating Cryptic species Hybridization Male mate choice Mate quality signals Species recognition 



We thank Aude Balourdet and Christine Dubreuil for field assistance and Thierry Rigaud for insightful discussions on the project and manuscript. The manuscript was significantly improved by very constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers.


Clément Lagrue was funded by a postdoctoral grant from the regional council of Burgundy.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


  1. Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1983) Why are males bigger than females in pre-copula pairs of Gammarus pulex? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacquet PMB, Brattström O, Wang H-L, Allen CE, Löfstedt C, Brakefield PM, Nieberding CM (2015) Selection on male sex pheromone composition contributes to butterfly reproductive isolation. Proc R Soc B 282:20142734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Clarkson K (1980) Mate selection and precopulatory guarding in Gammarus pulex. Z Tierpsychol 52:365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cothran RD (2008a) Direct and indirect fitness consequences of female choice in crustacean. Evolution 62:1666–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cothran RD (2008b) Phenotypic manipulation reveals sexual conflict over precopula duration. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1409–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cothran RD, Chapman K, Stiff AR, Relyea RA (2012) “Cryptic” direct benefits of mate choice: choosy females experience reduced predation risk while in precopula. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:905–913Google Scholar
  8. Crespi BJ (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim Behav 38:980–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Kort SR, ten Cate C (2001) Response to interspecific vocalizations is affected by degree of phylogenetic relatedness in Streptopelia doves. Anim Behav 61:239–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1989) Assessments and decisions during mate choice in Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Behaviour 109:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1992) Coexistence and exclusion among Gammarus species: behavioural avoidance of interspecific precopulation by male G. pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 64:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty LR, Shuker DM (2015) The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 26:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn A (1998) The role of calceoli in mate assessment and precopula guarding in Gammarus. Anim Behav 56:1471–1475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Elwood RW, Dick JTA (1990) The amorous Gammarus: the relationship between precopula duration and size-assortative mating in G. pulex. Anim Behav 39:828–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elwood RW, Gibson J, Neil S (1987) The amorous Gammarus: size assortative mating in G. pulex. Anim Behav 35:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Floyd R, Abebe E, Papert A, Blaxter M (2002) Molecular barcodes for soil nematode identification. Mol Ecol 11:839–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Franceschi N, Lemaître J-F, Cézilly F, Bollache L (2010) Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the prudent choice hypothesis. Anim Behav 79:911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galipaud M, Bollache L, Wattier R, Dubreuil C, Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X, Lagrue C (2015a) Overestimation of the strength of size-assortative pairing in taxa with cryptic diversity: a case of Simpson’s paradox. Anim Behav 102:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galipaud M, Bollache L, Oughadou A, Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X (2015b) Males do not always switch females when presented with a better reproductive option. Behav Ecol 26:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grafen A, Ridley M (1983) A model of mate guarding. J Theor Biol 102:549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2002) Sexual selection and species recognition in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus pygmaeus: conflicting preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartnoll RG, Smith SM (1980) An experimental study of sex discrimination and pair formation in Gammarus duebenii (Amphipoda). Crustaceana 38:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard DJ, Gregory PG, Chu J, Cain ML (1998) Conspecific sperm precedence is an effective barrier to hybridization between closely related species. Evolution 52:511–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hynes HBN (1954) The ecology of Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg and its occurrence in fresh water in western Britain. J Anim Ecol 23:38–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jormalainen V (1998) Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Q Rev Biol 73:275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S (1995) Female resistance and duration of mate-guarding in three aquatic peracarids (Crustacea). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinne O (1954) Interspezifische sterilpaarung als konkurren zokologischer Faktor bei Gammariden (Crustacea, Peracarida). Naturwissenschaften 18:434–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolding S (1986) Interspecific competition for mates and habitat selection in five species of Gammarus (Amphipoda: Crustacea). Mar Biol 91:491–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagrue C, Wattier R, Galipaud M, Gauthey Z, Rullmann J-P, Dubreuil C, Rigaud T, Bollache L (2014) Confrontation of cryptic diversity and mate discrimination within Gammarus pulex and Gammarus fossarum species complexes. Freshw Biol 59:2555–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemaître J-F, Rigaud T, Cornet S, Bollache L (2009) Sperm depletion, male mating behaviour and reproductive «time-out» in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Anim Behav 77:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lengagne T, Grolet O, Joly P (2006) Male mating speed promotes hybridization in the Rana lessonaeRana esculenta waterfrog system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liou LW, Price TD (1994) Speciation by reinforcement of premating isolation. Evolution 48:1451–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayr E (1988) The why and how of species. Biol Philos 3:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2012) The (mis)concept of species recognition. Trends Ecol Evol 27:421–427Google Scholar
  36. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfennig KS (1998) The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1743–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pfennig KS (2000) Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol 11:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sparkes TC, Keogh DP, Orsburn TH (2002) Female resistance and mating outcomes in a stream-dwelling isopod: effects of male energy reserves and mating history. Behaviour 139:875–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thiel M (2011) Chemical communication in peracarid crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Thiel M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 199–218Google Scholar
  43. Ward PI (1983) Advantages and a disadvantage of large size for male Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wong BBM, Keogh JS, Jennions MD (2004) Mate recognition in a freshwater fish: geographical distance, genetic differentiation, and variation in female preference for local over foreign males. J Evol Biol 17:701–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Galipaud
    • 1
  • Zoé Gauthey
    • 2
  • Jérémie Turlin
    • 3
    • 6
  • Loïc Bollache
    • 4
    • 6
  • Clément Lagrue
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary BiologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.INRA, UMR 1224, Ecologie Comportementale et Biologie des Populations de PoissonsSaint-Pée sur NivelleFrance
  3. 3.UMR CNRS 6282 BiogéosciencesDijonFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement UMR CNRS 6249Université de Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance
  5. 5.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  6. 6.Université de BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations