Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 43–48 | Cite as

Female resistance and duration of mate-guarding in three aquatic peracarids (Crustacea)

  • V. Jormalainen
  • S. Merilaita


Both theoretical and empirical studies have treated mate-guarding in aquatic Crustacea purely as a male decision problem. However, male and female interests are rarely identical, as implied by observations of female resistance against guarding attempts. We tested experimentally the occurrence of sexual conflict over guarding duration in three crustacean species: Idotea baltica, Asellus aquaticus (Isopoda), and Gammarus zaddachi (Amphipoda). Specifically, we manipulated, by osmotic stress or a neuromuscular blocking agent, the female's ability to resist guarding attempts. Female manipulation, by both methods, roughly doubled precopula duration in I. baltica (Figs. 1 and 2) showing that female resistance effectively diminishes guarding duration. However, in A. aquaticus and G. zaddachi female manipulation had no effect on guarding duration, which also was longer than in I. baltica (Fig. 2). This implies either that male and female interests are equal or that the conflict is resolved according to the male interest in these species. The lack of female resistance in such species allows long precopulatory guarding. In I. baltica we also manipulated, by osmotic stress and by clipping nails, male ability to hold the female. These treatments had no effect on guarding duration (Figs. 1 and 2). Male size tended to correlate positively with guarding duration in control groups, but not in female manipulation groups (Fig. 3). Thus, conflict is mainly resolved according to the female interest in I. baltica. Results in this species also suggest that female resistance selects for large male size. Consequently, mechanisms of sexual selection may differ considerably between species with otherwise comparable mating patterns.

Key words

Precopula Sexual selection Female resistance Isopoda Amphipoda 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1983) Why are males bigger than females in pre-copula pairs of Gammarus pulex? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13: 239–241Google Scholar
  2. Adams J, Greenwood P, Pollit R, Yonow T (1985) Loading constraints and sexual size dimorphism in Asellus aquaticus. Behaviour 92: 277–287Google Scholar
  3. Ahnesjö I, Vincent A, Alatalo R, Halliday T, Sutherland WJ (1993) The role of females in influencing mating patterns. Behav Ecol 4: 187–189Google Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G (1992) Pre-copulatory fighting in a water strider: inter-sexual conflict or mate assessment? Anim Behav 43: 559–567Google Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Clarkson K (1980) Mate selection and precopulatory quarding in Gammarus pulex. Z Tierpsychol 52: 365–380Google Scholar
  6. Birkhead T, Møller A (1993) Female control of paternity. Trends Ecol Evol 8: 100–104Google Scholar
  7. Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ (1991) Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351: 58–60Google Scholar
  8. Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1989) Assessments and decisions during mate choice in Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Behaviour 109: 235–246Google Scholar
  9. Elwood RW, Dick JTA (1990) The amorous Gammarus: the relationship between precopula duration and size-assortative mating in G. pulex. Anim Behav 39: 828–833Google Scholar
  10. Grafen A, Ridley M (1983) A model of mate guarding. J Theor Biol 102: 549–567Google Scholar
  11. Hunte W, Myers RA, Doyle RW (1985) Bayesian mating decisions in an amphipod, Gammarus lawrencianus Bousfield. Anim Behav 33: 366–372Google Scholar
  12. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7: 107–112Google Scholar
  13. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S (1993) Female resistance and precopulatory guarding in isopod Idotea baltica (Pallas). Behaviour 125: 219–231Google Scholar
  14. Jormalainen V, Tuomi J, Merilaita S (1994) Effect of female resistance on size dependent precopula duration in mate guarding Crustacea. Anim Behav 47: 1471–1474Google Scholar
  15. Jormalainen V, Tuomi J, Yamamura N (in press) Intersexual conflict over precopula duration in mate-guarding Crustacea. Behav ProcessGoogle Scholar
  16. Manning JT (1975) Male discrimination and investment in Asellus aquaticus (L.) and A. meridianus Racovitsza (Crustacea: Isopoda). Behaviour 55: 1–14Google Scholar
  17. Naylor C, Adams J (1987) Sexual dimorphism, drag constraints and male performance in Gammarus duebeni (Amphipoda). Oikos 48: 23–27Google Scholar
  18. Parker GA (1974) Courtship persistence and female quarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48: 157–184Google Scholar
  19. Parker G (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166Google Scholar
  20. Ridley M, Thompson D (1979) Size and mating in Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea: Isopoda). Z Tierpsychol 51: 380–397Google Scholar
  21. Ridley M, Thompson DJ (1985) Sexual selection of population dynamics in aquatic Crustacea. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 409–422Google Scholar
  22. Rosenqvist G, Berglund A (1992) Is female sexual behaviour a neglected topic? Trends Ecol Evol 7: 174–176Google Scholar
  23. Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa J (1994) Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol Evol 9: 289–293Google Scholar
  24. Taylor P (1980) Neuromuscular blocking agents. In: Goodman Gilman A, Goodman S, Gilman A (eds) The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. Macmillan,New York, pp 220–234Google Scholar
  25. Thompson DJ, Manning JT (1981) Mate selection by Asellus (Crustacea: Isopoda). Behaviour 78: 178–187Google Scholar
  26. Ward PI (1984) The effects of size on the mating decisions of Gammarus pulex (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Z Tierpsychol 64: 174–184Google Scholar
  27. Ward PI (1988) Sexual selection, natural selection, and body size in Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Am Nat 131: 348–359Google Scholar
  28. West-Eberhard MJ, Bradbury JW, Davies NB, Gouyon P-H, Hammerstein P, König B, Parker GA, Queller DC, Sachser N, Slagsvold T, Trillmich F, Vogel C (1987) Conflicts between and within the sexes in sexual selection-group report. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: Testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 180–195Google Scholar
  29. Yamamura N (1987) A model on correlation between precopulatory guarding and short receptivity to copulation. J Theor Biol 127: 171–180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Jormalainen
    • 1
  • S. Merilaita
    • 1
  1. 1.Satakunta Environmental Research CentreUniversity of TurkuPoriFinland

Personalised recommendations