Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 219–236 | Cite as

Monogamy, spawning and skin-shedding of the sea moth, Eurypegasus draconis (Pisces: Pegasidae)

  • Daphna Herold
  • Eugenie Clark
Article

Synopsis

The Red Sea seamoth, Eurypegasus draconis, has a social structure that involves close pair-bonding with a monogamous mating system. The occurrence of 61 specimens, 95.1% paired, were recorded in the Gulf of Aqaba, during summers 1989 and 1990. Fourteen pairs were tagged and seven of them were seen again at least once. Cumulative location maps for tagged individuals showed that they were not territorial or site-attached, home ranges of pairs overlapped, they had low mobility, and occurred in low densities. Dissections and histological analyses showed that pairs (n = 12) were heterosexual and all individuals were sexually mature. E. draconis is sexually dimorphic. Females (n = 13) have significantly larger carapace volumes than males (n = 13). In aquaria, pairs spawned repetitively at dusk. At the peak of a spawning rise they released pelagic eggs from which embryos hatched in 24–29h at 27.2°C. Unpaired individuals probably have little opportunity to meet and mate. Close pair-bonding that ensures the availability of a mate, probably evolved as a style for increasing reproductive success in these small fish that occur in low density. E. draconis sheds its skin in one piece every 1 to 5 days.

Key words

Pelagic spawning Sexual dimorphism Red Sea Mating Gut contents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Barlow, G.W. 1981. Patterns of parental investment, dispersal and size among coral-reef fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 6: 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow, G.W. 1984. Patterns of monogamy among teleost fishes. Arch. Fish Wiss. Beih. 35: 75–123.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, G.W. 1986. A comparison of monogamy among fresh-water and coral-reef fishes, pp. 767–775. In: T. Uyeno, R. Arai, T. Taniuchi & K. Matsuura (ed.) Indo-Pacific Fish Biology: Proc. Second Internat. Conf. on Indo-Pacific Fishes, Ichthyological Soc. Japan, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  4. Barlow, G.W. 1987. Spawning, eggs and larvae of the longnose filefish, Oxymonacanthus longirostris, a monogamous coralivore. Env. Biol. Fish. 20: 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow, G.W. 1988. Monogamy in relation to resources. pp. 55–79. In: C.N. Slobodchikoff (ed.) The Ecology of Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Baylis, J.R. 1981. The evolution of parental care in fishes, with reference to Darwin's rule of sexual selection. Env. Biol. Fish. 6: 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund, G., G. Rosenqvist & I. Svensson. 1986. Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, E. 1983. Hidden life of an undersea desert. Nat. Geog. 164: 129–144.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, E. & J. Pohle. 1992. Monogamy in the tilefish, Malacanthus latovittatus, compared with polygyny in related species. Nat. Geog. Res. Exploration 8: 276–295.Google Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T.J. 1989. Facultative monogamy in obligate coraldwelling hawkfishes (Cirrhitidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 26: 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Echeverria, T.W. 1986. Sexual dimorphism in four species of rockfish genus Sebastes (Scorpaenidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 15: 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen, S.T. & L.W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215–223.Google Scholar
  13. Fishelson, L. 1966. Solenostomus cyanopterus Blecker (Teleostei, Solenostomidae) in Elat(Gulf of Akaba). Israel J. Zool. 15: 95–103.Google Scholar
  14. Fishelson, L. 1973. Observations on skin structure and sloughing in the stone fish Synanceja verrucosa and related fish species as a functional adaptation to their mode of life. Z. Zellforsch. 140: 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fricke, H.W. 1973. Behaviour as part of ecological adaptation. Helgo. Wiss. Meeresunters. 24: 120–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricke, H. 1986. Pair swimming and mutual partner guarding in monogamous butterflyfish (Pisces, Chaetodontidae): a joint advertisement for territory. Ethology 73: 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghiselin, M.T. 1969. The evolution of hermaphroditism among animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 44: 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, E.M. 1978. Guide to fishes, 4th ed. Dept. Harbors and Marine, Brisbane. 421 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Gronell, A.M. 1984. Courtship, spawning and social organization of the pipefish, Corythoichthys intestinalis (Pisces: Syngnathidae) with notes on two congeneric species. Z. Tierpsychol. 65: 1–24.Google Scholar
  20. Humason, G.L. 1979. Animal tissue techniques. W.H. Freeman Co., San Francisco. 661 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, S. & M. Kumaran. 1964. Notes on eggs, larvae and juveniles of fishes from Indian waters. Indian J.Fisher. 11: 232–246.Google Scholar
  22. Jungersen, H.F.E. 1915. Some facts regarding the genus Pegasus. Rept. 84th Meeting Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1914, Trans. Sec. D, 6: 420–422.Google Scholar
  23. Kuiter, R.H. 1985. The remarkable seamoths. Scuba Diver 3 (3): 16–18.Google Scholar
  24. Knowlton, N. 1979. Reproduction synchrony, parental investment and the evolutionary dynamics of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 27: 1022–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leis, J.M. & D.S. Rennis, 1984. The larvae of Indo-Pacific coral reef fishes. New South Wales University Press, Sydney. 269 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Masuda, H. K. Amaoka, C. Araga, T. Uyeno & T. Yoshino. 1984. The fishes of the Japanese Archipelago. Tokai University Press, Tokyo. 437 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Orians, G.H. 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Amer. Nat. 103: 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palsson, W.A. & T.W. Pietsch. 1989. Revision of the acanthopterygian fish family Pegasidae (Order Gasterosteiformes). Indo-Pacific Fishes 18: 1–38.Google Scholar
  29. Parker, G.A. 1974. Courtship persistence and female guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48: 157–184.Google Scholar
  30. Pietsch, T.W. 1976. Dimorphism, parasitism, and sex: reproductive strategies, among deep sea ceratoid anglerfishes. Copeia 1976: 781–793.Google Scholar
  31. Pietsch, T.W. 1978. Evolutionary relationship of the seamoth (Teleostei, Pegasidae) with a classification of gasterosteiform families. Copeia 1978: 517–529.Google Scholar
  32. Pressley, P.H. 1981. Pair formation and joint territoriality in a simultaneous hermaphrodite: the coral reef fish Serranus tigrinus. Z. Tierpsychol. 56: 33–46.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, C.M. & R.F.G. Ormond. 1992. Butterflyfish social behaviour, with special reference to the incidence of territoriality: a review. Env. Biol. Fish. 34: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robertson, D.R., N.V.C. Polunin & K. Leighton. 1979. The behavioral ecology of three Indian Ocean surgeonfishes (Acanthurus lineatus, A. leucosternon and Zebrasoma scopas): their feeding strategies and social and mating systems. Env. Biol. Fish. 4: 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sale, P.F. 1980. The ecology of fishes on coral reefs. Ann. Rev. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 18: 367–421.Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute Inc. 1987. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. Version 6 Edition. Cary. 1029pp.Google Scholar
  37. Shine, R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quart. Rev. Biol. 64: 419–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1987. Introduction to biostatistics, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York. 363 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Thresher, R.E. 1984. Reproduction in reef fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. 399 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Thresher, R.E. & J.T. Moyer. 1983. Male success, courtship complexity and patterns of sexual selection in three congeneric species of sexually monochromatic and dichromatic damselfishes (Pisces: Pomacentridae). Anim. Behav. 31: 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinker, S.W. 1944. Hawaiian fishes. Tongg Publishing Co., Honolulu. 404 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Trivers, R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. pp. 136–179. In: B.G. Campbell (ed). Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971, Adline, Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Venkateswarlu, T. & G. Verghese. 1980. Occurrence of the batfish, Pyegasus draconis L. (Pegasiformes: Pegasidae) in Lakshadweek (India). Acta Ichthyol. et Pisc. 10: 55–58.Google Scholar
  44. Vincent, A. 1990. A seahorse father makes a good mother. Natural History 12: 34–42.Google Scholar
  45. Wickler, W. & U. Seibt. 1981. Monogamy in crustacea and man. Z. Tierpsychol. 57: 215–234.Google Scholar
  46. Wickler, W. & U. Seibt. 1983. Monogamy: an ambiguous concept. pp. 33–50. In: P. Bateson (ed.) Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 307 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Belknap Press, Cambridge. 697 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Wittenberger, J.F. & R.L. Tilson. 1980. The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaccone, G. & A. Licata. 1982. Histochemistry and fine structure of the flame cone cells in the skin epidermis of the sea horse fish Hippocampus ramulosus Leach 1814 (Teleostei: Syngnathidae). Arch. Biol. (Bruxelles) 93: 249–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daphna Herold
    • 1
  • Eugenie Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkU.S.A.
  2. 2.Institute for Nature Conservation Research and Zoology Department, Faculty of Life SciencesTel Aviv UniversityRamat-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations