Journal of Biosciences

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 257–265 | Cite as

Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females

Article

Abstract

When males are the larger sex, a positive allometric relationship between male and female sizes is often found across populations of a single species (i.e. Rensch’s rule). This pattern is typically explained by a sexual selection pressure on males. Here, we report that the allometric relationship was negative across populations of a shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus, although males are extremely larger than females. Male L. callipterus collect and defend empty snail shells in each of which a female breeds. We found that, across six populations, male and female sizes are positively correlated with not only sexual and fecundity selection indices, but also with shell sizes. Given their different reproductive behaviours, these correlations mean that males are required to be more powerful, and thus larger, to transport larger shells, while female bodies are reduced to the shell size to enable them to enter the shells. Among the three size selections (sexual selection, fecundity selection and shell size), shell size explained the allometry, suggesting that females are more strongly subject to size selection associated with shell size availability than males. However, the allometry was violated when considering an additional population where size-selection regimes of males differed from that of other populations. Therefore, sexual size allometry will be violated by body size divergence induced by multiple selection regimes.

Keywords

Phenotypic plasticity sexual selection shell-brooding shell size 

Abbreviations used

H

height

RMA

reduced major axis

SL

standard length

SSD

sexual size dimorphism

W

width

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock 2005 Animal behaviour: an evolutionary approach, 8th edition (MA: Sinauer Associates)Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M 1994 Sexual selection (NJ: Princeton University Press)Google Scholar
  3. Arak A 1988 Sexual dimorphism in body size: a model and a test; Evolution 42 820–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanckenhorn W U 2000 The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?; Q. Rev. Biol. 75 385–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanckenhorn W U 2005 Behavioural causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism; Ethology 111 977–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanckenhorn W U, Stillwell R C, Young K A, Fox C W and Ashton K G 2006 When Rensch meets Bergmann: does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude?; Evolution 60 2004–2011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borg Å, Forsgren E and Magnhagen C 2002 Plastic sex-roles in the common goby the effect of nest availability; Oikos 98 105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale J, Dunn P O, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T and Whittingham L A 2007 Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism; Proc. R. Soc. London B 274 2971–2979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emlen S T and Oring L W 1977 Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems; Science 197 215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairbairn D J 1997 Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females; Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28 659–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairbairn D J 2005 Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: testing two hypotheses for Rensch’s rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis; Am. Nat. (Suppl.) 116 69–84Google Scholar
  12. Fairbairn D J and Preziosi R F 1994 Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis; Am. Nat. 144 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fairbairn D J, Blackenhorn W U and Szekély T 2007 Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism (NY: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  14. Falster, D S, Warton D I and Wright I J 2003 (S)MATR: standardized major axis tests and routines. Version 1.0; http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR
  15. Forsgren E, Kvarnemo C and Lindstrom K 1996 Mode of sexual selection determined by resource abundance in two sand goby populations; Evolution 50 646–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gashagaza M M, Nakaya K and Sato T 1995 Taxonomy of small-sized cichlid fishes in the shell-bed area of Lake Tanganyika; Japan J. Ichthol. 42 291–302Google Scholar
  17. Head G 1995 Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (class Aranae); Evolution 49 776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedrick A V and Temeles E J 1989 The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests; Trend. Ecol. Evol. 4 136–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kraushaar U and Blanckenhorn W U 2002 Population variation in sexual selection and its effect on size allometry in two dung fly species with contrasting sexual size dimorphism; Evolution 56 307–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehtonen T and Lindström K 2008 Density-dependent sexual selection in the monogamous fish Archocentrus nigrofasciatus; Oikos 117 867–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lengkeek W, Didderen K, Côté I M, van der Zee E M, Snoek R C and Reynolds J D 2008 Plasticity in sexual size dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in Mediterranean blennies (Blenniidae); Can. J. Zool. 86 1173–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maan M and Taborsky M 2008 Sexual conflict over breeding substrate causes female expulsion and offspring loss in a cichlid fish; Behav. Ecol. 19 302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pearson D, Shine R and How R 2002 Sex-specific niche partitioning and sexual size dimorphism in Australian pythons (Morelia spilota imbricata); Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 77 113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prenter J, Elwood R W and Montgomery W I 1999 Sexual size dimorphism and reproductive investment by female spiders: a comparative analysis; Evolution 53 1987–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pyron M, Fincel M and Dang M 2007 Sexual size dimorphism and ecomorphology of spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) from the Wabash River Watershed; J Freshwater Ecol. 22 687–696Google Scholar
  26. Raihani G, Székely T, Serrano-Meneses M A, Pitra C and Goriup P 2006 The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae); Anim. Behav. 71 833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rensch B 1950 Die Abhangigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Korpergroße. Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 1 58–69Google Scholar
  28. Reznick D N and Endler J A 1982 The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata); Evolution 36 160–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sato T 1994 Active accumulation of spawning substrate: a determinant of extreme polygyny in a shell-brooding cichlid; Anim. Behav. 48 669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sato T and Gashagaza M M 1997 Shell-brooding cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika: their habitats and mating systems; in Fish communities in Lake Tanganyika (eds) H Kawanabe, M Hori and M Nagoshi (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press) pp 219–238Google Scholar
  31. Sato T, Hirose M, Taborsky M and Kimura S 2004 Size-dependent male alternative reproductive tactics in the shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus in Lake Tanganyika; Ethology 110 49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schütz D and Taborsky M 2000 Giant males or dwarf females: what determines the extreme sexual size dimorphism in Lamprologus callipterus?; J. Fish. Biol. 57 1254–1265Google Scholar
  33. Schütz D and Taborsky M 2005 The influence of sexual selection and ecological constraints on an extreme sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid; Anim. Behav. 70 539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schütz D, Parker G A, Taborsky M and Sato T 2006 An optimality approach to male and female body sizes in an extremely size-dimorphic cichlid fish; Evol. Ecol. Res. 8 1–16Google Scholar
  35. Shine R 1989 Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence; Q. Rev. Biol. 64 419–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Székely T, Freckleton R P and Reynolds J D 2004 Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 12224–12227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker S P W and McCormick M I 2009 Sexual selection explains sex-specific growth plasticity and positive allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a reef fish; Proc. R. Soc. London B 276 3335–3343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Young K A 2005 Life-history variation and allometry for sexual size dimorphism in Pacific salmon and trout; Proc. R. Soc. London B 272 167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yuma M, Narita T, Hori M and Kondo T 1998 Food resources of shrimp-eating cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika; Env. Biol. Fish. 52 371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyKyoto UniversitySakyo, KyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biology and GeosciencesOsaka City UniversitySumiyoshi, OsakaJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of Tourism and Environmental StudiesNagano UniversityUeda, NaganoJapan

Personalised recommendations