Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1179–1195 | Cite as

Maternal and paternal contributions to egg size and egg number variation in the blackfin pearl killifish Austrolebias nigripinnis

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Reproductive effort, egg number and egg size are traditionally considered to be ‘female’ life history traits. However, females often adjust the amount of resources allocated to reproduction depending on their mate, causing male environmental effects on life history traits. If females respond to male traits which are genetically variable, then male environmental effects contain indirect genetic effects. Estimates of how much of the total variation in life history traits originates from female effects versus male environmental effects, seems mostly lacking. We have investigated variation in rates of egg production and in egg size in the annual Argentinian blackfin pearl killifish Austrolebias nigripinnis, in a crossed design where males were exchanged repeatedly between females. Our analysis of phenotypic variance components of reproductive effort, egg size and egg number indicates that the amount of variation contributed by male environmental effects is equal (egg size, reproductive effort) or larger (egg number) than that between females. For egg size and number, we find that male environmental effects consist of a male random effect representing the average response of females to male phenotype, plus a female-male interaction term. This term can be understood as the deviation from the population mean of an individual female’s response. For reproductive effort, we find that the male environmental effect consists of an interaction term only. Random effects on egg size and number additionally vary in magnitude depending on the weekday where we collected eggs, probably due to cyclic variation in experimental conditions. Since we find that both male phenotype and environmental conditions affect egg size and number as determined by females, our results suggest that selection on these life history traits will be frequency-dependent.

Keywords

Male environmental effect Clutch size Reproductive effort Egg size Fish Reaction norms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Martin Fourcade and GAK for hospitality and assistance during fieldwork in Argentina. The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology of Iran provided funding for MM. Martine Maan gave comments on a previous version of this manuscript. All animals were kept, bred and handled in accordance with Dutch animal welfare regulations.

References

  1. Agrawal AF, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (2001) On indirect genetic effects in structured populations. Am Nat 158:308–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderdice DF (1988) Osmotic and ionic regulation in teleost eggs and larvae. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish physiology, vol XIA. Academic Press Inc, London, pp 163–251Google Scholar
  3. Arezo MJ, D’Allesandro S, Papa N, de Sá R, Berois N (2007) Sex differentiation pattern in the annual fish Austrolebias charrua (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae). Tissue Cell 39:89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D (2005) Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5:27–30. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/ Google Scholar
  6. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MH, White JS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. TREE 24:127–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown MB, Forsythe AB (1974) Robust tests for equality of variances. J Am Stat Ass 69:364–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA, Crainiceanu C (2006) Measurement error in nonlinear models, a modern perspective, second edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers RC, Waiwood KG (1996) Maternal and seasonal differences in egg sizes and spawning characteristics of captive Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1986–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chenoweth SF, Rundle HD, Blows MW (2010) Experimental evidence for the evolution of indirect genetic effects: changes in the interaction effect coefficient, PSI (Ψ), due to sexual selection. Evolution 64:1849–1856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chow CY, Wolfner MF, Clark AG (2010) The genetic basis for male × female interactions underlying variation in reproductive phenotypes of Drosophila. Genetics 186:1355–1365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark AG, Begun DJ, Prout T (1999) Female × male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283:217–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Czesak ME, Fox CW (2003) Evolutionary ecology of size and number in a seed beetle: genetic trade-offs differ between environments. Evolution 57:1121–1132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Einum S, Fleming IA (1999) Maternal effects of egg size in brown trout (Salmo trutta): norms of reaction to environmental quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2095–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Einum S, Hendry AP, Fleming IA (2002) Egg-size evolution in aquatic environments: does oxygen availability constrain size? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2325–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Errea A, Danulat E (2001) Growth of the annual fish, Cynolebias viarius (Cyprinodontiformes), in the natural habitat compared to laboratory conditions. Environ Biol Fishes 61:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans JP, Box TM, Brooshooft P, Tatler JR, Fitzpatrick JL (2010) Females increase egg deposition in favor of large males in the rainbowfish, Melanotaenia australis. Behav Ecol 21:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleming IA, Ng S (1987) Evaluation of techniques for fixing, preserving and measuring salmon eggs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:1957–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gall GAE, Neira R (2004) Genetic analysis of female reproduction traits of farmed coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Aquaculture 234:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffing B (1981) A theory of natural selection incorporating interaction among individuals. I. The modeling process. J Theor Biol 89:635–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendry AP, Day T (2003) Revisiting the positive correlation between female size and egg size. Evol Ecol Res 5:421–429Google Scholar
  24. Hendry AP, Day T, Cooper AB (2001) Optimal size and number of propagules: allowance for discrete stages and effects of maternal size on reproductive output and offspring fitness. Am Nat 106:387–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hui W, Gel YR, Gastwirth JL (2008) Lawstat: an R package for law, public policy and biostatistics. J Stat Soft 28:1–26Google Scholar
  26. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD (2005) Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am Nat 166:79–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stats 5:299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ingleby FC, Hunt J, Hosken DJ (2010) The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J Evol Biol 23:2031–2045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonsson N, Jonsson B, Fleming IA (1996) Does early growth cause a phenotypically plastic response in egg production of Atlantic salmon? Funct Ecol 10:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kamler E (2005) Parent-egg-progeny relationships in teleost fishes: an energetics perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 15:399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolm N (2001) Females produce larger eggs for large males in a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2229–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolm N, Stein RW, Mooers AØ, Verspoor JJ, Cunningham EJ (2007) Can sexual selection drive female life histories? A comparative study on Galliform birds. J Evol Biol 20:627–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koops MA, Hutchings JA, Adams BK (2003) Environmental predictability and the cost of imperfect information: influences on offspring size variability. Evol Ecol Res 5:29–42Google Scholar
  34. Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McFarlane ML, Cherry MI, Evans MR (2010) Female Cape sugarbirds (Promerops cafer) modify egg investment both for extra-pair mates and for male trail length. J Evol Biol 23:1998–2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGlothlin JW, Brodie ED III (2009) How to measure indirect genetic effects: the congruence of trait-based and variance-partitioning approaches. Evolution 63:1785–1795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meffert LM (1995) Bottleneck effects on genetic variance for courtship repertoire. Genetics 139:365–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Meffert LM (2000) The evolutionary potential of morphology and mating behavior: the role of epistasis in bottlenecked populations. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–193Google Scholar
  39. Moore AJ, Brodie ED III, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51:1352–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olofsson H, Ripa J, Jonzén N (2009) Bet-hedging as an evolutionary game: the trade-off between egg size and number. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2963–2969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pakkasmaa S, Peuhkuri N, Laurila A, Hirvonen H, Ranta E (2001) Female and male contribution to egg size in salmonids. Evol Ecol 15:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petfield D, Chenoweth SF, Rundle HD, Blows MW (2005) Genetic variance in female condition predicts indirect genetic variance in male sexual display traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6045–6050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Philippi T, Seger J (1989) Hedging ones evolutionary bets, revisited. TREE 4:41–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Podrabsky JE, Hrbek T, Hand SC (1998) Physical and chemical characteristics of ephemeral pond habitats in the Maracaibo basin and Llanos region of Venezuela. Hydrobiologia 362:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Polačik M, Reichard M (2009) Indirect fitness benefits are not related to male dominance in a killifish. Beh Ecol Sociobiol 63:1427–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rideout RM, Morgan MJ (2010) Relationships between maternal body size, condition and potential fecundity of four north-west Atlantic demersal fishes. J Fish Biol 76:1379–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Rueffler C, Van Dooren TJM, Metz JAJ (2006) The evolution of resource specialization through frequency-dependent and frequency-independent mechanisms. American Naturalist 167:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sheldon BC (2000) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. TREE 15:397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Skinner AJ, Watt PJ (2007) Strategic egg allocation in the zebra fish, Danio rerio. Behav Ecol 18:905–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smoker WW, Gharrett AJ, Stekoll MS, Taylor SG (2000) Genetic variation of fecundity and egg size in anadromous pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Walbaum. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 7:44–50Google Scholar
  53. Spence R, Smith C (2006) Mating preference of female zebrafish, Danio rerio, in relation to male dominance. Behav Ecol 17:779–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Stram DO, Lee JW (1994) Variance components testing in the longitudinal fixed effects model. Biometrics 50:1171–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taborsky B (2006a) The influence of past and present environments on adult life history decisions. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 274:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taborsky B (2006b) Mothers determine offspring size in response to own filial growth conditions. Biol Lett 2:225–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Noordwijk A, de Jong G (1986) Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Wade MJ (2000) Epistasis: genetic constraint within populations and accelerant of divergence among them. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 213–231Google Scholar
  61. Wolf JB (2000) Indirect genetic effects and gene interactions. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 158–176Google Scholar
  62. Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. TREE 13:64–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wourms JP (1972) The developmental biology of annual fishes. III. Pre-embryonic and embryonic diapause of variable duration in the egg of annual fishes. J Exp Zool 182:389–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BiologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of AgricultureBirjand UniversityBirjandIran
  3. 3.Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity NaturalisLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.UMR7625 Ecology and Evolution, École Normale SupérieureParisFrance

Personalised recommendations