Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 701–714

Sex-specific responses to fecundity selection in the broad-nosed pipefish

  • Jasmin D. Winkler
  • Kai N. Stölting
  • Anthony B. Wilson
Original Paper

Abstract

Fecundity selection, acting on traits enhancing reproductive output, is an important determinant of organismal body size. Due to a unique mode of reproduction, mating success and fecundity are positively correlated with body size in both sexes of male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish. As male pipefish brood eggs on their tail and egg production in females occurs in their ovaries (located in the trunk region), fecundity selection is expected to affect both sexes in this species, and is predicted to act differently on body proportions of males and females during their development. Based on this hypothesis, we investigated sexual size dimorphism in body size allometry and vertebral numbers across populations of the widespread European pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Despite the absence of sex-specific differences in overall and region-specific vertebral counts, male and female pipefish differ significantly in the relative lengths of their trunk and tail regions, consistent with region-specific selection pressures in the two sexes. Male pipefish show significant growth allometry, with disproportionate growth in the brooding tail region relative to the trunk, resulting in increasingly skewed region-specific sexual size dimorphism with increasing body size, a pattern consistent across five study populations. Sex-specific differences in patterns of growth in S. typhle support the hypothesis that fecundity selection can contribute to the evolution of sexual size dimorphism.

Keywords

Allometric growth Life history evolution Pleomerism Sexual selection Sexual-size dimorphism 

References

  1. Ahnesjö I (1992a) Fewer newborn result in superior juveniles in the paternally brooding pipefish Syngnathus typhle L. J Fish Biol 41:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahnesjö I (1992b) Consequences of male brood care; weight and number of newborn in a sex—role reversed pipefish. Funct Ecol 6:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahnesjö I (1995) Temperature affects male and female potential reproductive rates differently in the sex-role reversed pipefish. Behav Ecol 6:229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. Asano H (1977) On the tendencies of differentiation in the composition of the vertebral number of teleostean fishes. Mem Fac Agric Kinki Univ 10:29–37Google Scholar
  6. Berglund A (1991) Egg competition in a sex-role reversed pipefish: Subdominant females trade reproduction for growth. Evolution 45:770–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2001) Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol 12:402–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2003) Sex role reversal in pipefish. Adv Stud Behav 32:131–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in 2 pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19(4):301−307Google Scholar
  10. Bergmann PJ, Melin AD, Russell AP (2006) Differential segmental growth of the vertebral column of the rat (Rattus norvegicus). Zoology 109:54–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernet P, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A (1998) Female-female competition affects female ornamentation in the sex-role reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. Behaviour 135(5):535−550Google Scholar
  12. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75:385–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breder C, Rosen D (1966) Modes of reproduction in fishes. Natural History Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson C (1986) Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Deane EE, Woo NYS (2009) Modulation of fish growth hormone levels by salinity, temperature, pollutants and aquaculture related stress: a review. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 19:97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Development Core Team R (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncker G (1908) Syngnathiden Studien. I. Variation und Modifikation bei Siphonostoma typhle L. Jahrb Hamburg Wissensc Anst 25:1–115Google Scholar
  19. Gould S (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Gould S, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grande L, Bemis W (1998) A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history. J Vertebr Paleontol 18:1–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart J (1973) Pacific fishes of Canada. Fish Res Board Can Bull 180:740 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Head JJ, Polly PD (2007) Dissociation of somatic growth from segmentation drives gigantism in snakes. Biol Lett 3:296–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herald E (1941) A systematic analysis of variation in the western American pipefish, Syngnathus californiensis. Stanford Ichthyol Bull 2:49–73Google Scholar
  25. Hoffman E, Mobley K, Jones AG (2006) Male pregnancy and the evolution of body segmentation in seahorses and pipefishes. Evolution 60:404–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Klingenberg CP (2005) Developmental constraints, modules, and evolvability. In: Hallgrimsson B, Hall BK (eds) Variation. A central concept in biology. Elsevier, Academic Press, Oxford, pp 219–248Google Scholar
  27. Lankford TE, Targett TE (1994) Sustainability of estuarine nursery zones for juvenile weakfish (Cynoscion regalis): effects of temperature and salinity on feeding, growth and survival. Mar Biol 119(4):611–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsey CC (1975) Pleomerism, the widespread tendency among related fish species for vertebral number to be correlated with maximum body length. J Fish Res Board Can 32:2453–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madsen T, Shine R (1994) Costs of reproduction influence the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in snakes. Evolution 48:1389–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr E (1972) Sexual selection and natural selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Heinemann, London, pp 87–104Google Scholar
  31. Müller J, Scheyer T, Head JJ et al (2010) Homeotic effects, somitogenesis and the evolution of vertebral numbers in recent and fossil amniotes. PNAS 107(5):2118–2123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parra-Olea G, Wake DB (2001) Extreme morphological and ecological homoplasy in tropical salamanders. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(14):7888–7891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polly DP, Head JJ, Cohn M (2001) Testing modularity and dissociation: the evolution of regional proportions in snakes. In: Zelditch M (ed) Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development. Wiley-Liss, Inc, New York, pp 305–335Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Romer A (1970) The vertebrate body, 4th edn. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  36. Shine R (2000) Vertebral numbers in male and female snakes: the roles of natural, sexual and fecundity selection. J Evol Biol 13:455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Springer VG (1971) Revision of the fish genus Ecsenius (Blenniidae, Bleniinae, Salariini). Smithson Contrib Zool 72:1–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vincent A, Berglund A, Ahnesjö I (1995) Reproductive ecology of five pipefish species in one eelgrass meadow. Environ Biol Fish 44:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wake D (1966) Comparative osteology and evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Plethodontidae. Mem S Calif Acad Sci 4:1–111Google Scholar
  40. Ward AB, Brainerd EL (2007) Evolution of axial patterning in elongate fishes. Biol J Linn Soc 90:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warton DI, Olmerod J (2005) Smatr v2.1. University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  42. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006) Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81:259–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson AB, Eigenmann Veraguth I (2010) The impact of Pleistocene glaciation across the range of a widespread European coastal species. Mol Ecol 19:4535–4553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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 Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jasmin D. Winkler
    • 1
  • Kai N. Stölting
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anthony B. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Unit of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations