Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp 439–450 | Cite as

The breeding colouration of male three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as an indicator of energy investment in vigour

  • Markus Frischknecht
Article

Summary

A necessary condition of most models of intersexual selection requires that secondary sexual traits are costly so that cheating is prevented. If the conspicuous breeding colouration of male three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) is such a handicap, it must involve costs. I examined the energetic costs of the breeding colouration by varying the energy contents of the daily food supply among five groups of sticklebacks over a 10 week period. The nutritional carotenoid level, i.e. the colour pigment used in the breeding colouration, was constant for all fish. Both the increase of their condition factor and the condition level they finally achieved correlated positively with the food ration of the groups. Individuals whose condition increased during the experiment developed a more intensive red colouration. However, a direct correlation between food quantity and the red breeding colouration reached at the end of the experiment did not exist. Nevertheless, given the limitation of pigment availability, there was still variation in the breeding colouration and the costs for the metabolism of the colouration were sufficient to render it an honest signal: a female stickleback can assess a male's condition and condition change over the past few weeks by the intensity of the colour of his blue eyes (which is not based on carotenoids and whose pigments were therefore not controlled in the food) and his red jaw, respectively. How much an individual male fish invests in increase of length and increase of condition (which correlate negatively with each other) seems to be, at least partly, his own strategic decision, which could have important consequences in the competition for female mates. It is eventually this decision that a male stickleback seems to signal with his red jaw.

Keywords

breeding colouration carotenoids energy Gasterosteus aculeatus handicap sexual selection signal strategic decision 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 17, 375–93.Google Scholar
  2. Ando, S., Takeyama, T., Hatano, M. and Zama, K. (1985) Carotenoid-carrying lipoproteins in the serum of Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) associated with migration.Agric. Biol. Chem. 49, 2185–7.Google Scholar
  3. Baggerman, B. (1985) The role of biological rhythms in the photoperiodic regulation of seasonal breeding in the sticklebackGasterosteus aculeatus L.Netherlands J. Zool. 35, 14–31.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, G. (1978) The handicap principle in sexual selection.Evolution 32, 872–85.Google Scholar
  5. Bolger, T. and Connolly, P.L. (1989) The selection of suitable indices for the measurement and analysis of fish condition.J. Fish Biol. 34, 171–82.Google Scholar
  6. Brush, A.H. (1981) Carotenoids in wild and captive birds. InCarotenoids as Colorants and Vitamin A Precursors, (J.C. Bauernfeind, ed.), pp. 539–62. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Brush, A.H. (1990) Metabolism of carotenoid pigments in birds.FASEB J. 4, 2969–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brush, A.H. and Reisman, H.M. (1965) The carotenoid pigments in the three-spined stickleback,Gasterosteus aculeatus.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 14, 121–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Czeczuga, B. (1980) Carotenoids in fish.Pungitius pungitius (L.) andGasterosteus aculeatus L. (Gasterosteidae).Hydrobiologia 74, 7–10.Google Scholar
  10. Endler, J.A. (1980) Natural selection on color patterns inPoecilia reticulata.Evolution 34, 76–91.Google Scholar
  11. Endler, J.A. (1983) Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes.Environ. Biol. Fish. 9, 173–90.Google Scholar
  12. Endler, J.A. (1990) On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 41, 315–52.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, R.A. (1930)The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Fujii, R. (1969) Chromatophores and pigments. InFish Physiology III, (W.S. Hoar and D.J. Randall, eds), pp. 307–53. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Gaines, S.D. and Rice, W.R. (1990) Analysis of biological data when there are ordered expectations.Am. Nat. 135, 310–17.Google Scholar
  16. Goodman, D. (1982) Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value.Am. Nat. 119, 803–23.Google Scholar
  17. Grafen, A. (1990a) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher Process.J. Theor. Biol. 144, 473–516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grafen, A. (1990b) Biological signals as handicaps.J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Halver, J.E. (1957) Nutrition of salmonoid fishes: III. Water-soluble vitamin requirements of chinook salmon.J. Nutr. 62, 225–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton, W.D. and Zuk, M. (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites?Science 218, 384–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hasson, O. (1989) Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis.Proc. R. Soc. London B 235, 383–406.Google Scholar
  22. Hynes, H.B.N. (1950) The food of fresh-water sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus andPygosteus pungitius), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes.J. Anim. Ecol. 19, 36–58.Google Scholar
  23. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. and Nee, S. (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The ‘handicap’ principle.Evolution 45, 1431–42.Google Scholar
  24. Kirkpatrick, M. (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice.Evolution 36, 1–12.Google Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, M. (1986) Sexual selection and cycling parasites: a simulation study of Hamilton's hypothesis.J. Theor. Biol. 119, 263–71.Google Scholar
  26. Kirkpatrick, M. (1987) Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 43–70.Google Scholar
  27. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ryan, M.J. (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek.Nature 350, 33–8.Google Scholar
  28. Kodric-Brown, A. (1989) Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25, 393–401.Google Scholar
  29. Lande, R. (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–5.Google Scholar
  30. Lande, R. and Arnold, S.J. (1985) Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism.J. Theor. Biol. 117, 651–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Le Cren, E.D. (1951) The length—weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis).J. Anim. Ecol. 20, 201–19.Google Scholar
  32. Lythgoe, J.N. (1979)The Ecology of Vision. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  33. McLennan, D.A. and McPhail, J.D. (1989) Experimental investigation of the evolutionary significance of sexually dimorphic nuptial colouration inGasterosteus aculeatus (L.): temporal changes in the structure of male mosaic signal.Can. J. Zool. 67, 1767–77.Google Scholar
  34. Michod, R.E. and Hasson, O. (1990) On the evolution of reliable indicators of fitness.Am. Nat. 135, 788–808.Google Scholar
  35. Milinski, M. and Bakker, Th. C.M. (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males.Nature 344, 330–2.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council (1973)Nutrient Requirements of Trout, Salmon, and Catfish. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Nur, N. and Hasson, O. (1984) Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle.J. Theor. Biol. 110, 275–97.Google Scholar
  38. O'Donald, P. (1962) The theory of sexual selection.Heredity 17, 541–52.Google Scholar
  39. Pomiankowski, A. (1987) Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work — sometimes.Proc. R. Soc. London B 231, 123–45.Google Scholar
  40. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. and Nee, S. (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation.Evolution 45, 1422–30.Google Scholar
  41. Ricker, W.E. (1979) Growth rates and models. InFish physiology Vol. VIII (W.S. Hoar, D.J. Randall and J.R. Brett, eds), pp. 677–743. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Simpson, K.L., Katayama, T. and Chichester, C.O. (1981) Carotenoids in fish feeds. InCarotenoids As Colorants And Vitamin A Precursors (J.C. Bauernfeind, ed.), pp. 462–538. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Titschack, E. (1922) Die sekundären Geschlechtsmerkmale vonGasterosteus aculeatus. L.Z. Jahrb. Physiol. 39, 83–148.Google Scholar
  44. Torrissen, O.J., Hardy, R.W. and Shearer, K.D. (1989) Pigmentation of salmonids — carotenoid deposition and metabolism.Aquat. Sci. 1, 209–25.Google Scholar
  45. Wedekind, C. (1992) Detailed information about parasites revealed by sexual ornamentation.Proc. R. Soc. London B 247, 169–74.Google Scholar
  46. Wootton, R.J. (1976)The Biology of the Sticklebacks. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap.J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Zahavi, A. (1977) The costs of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle).J. Theor. Biol. 67, 603–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeh, D.W. and Zeh, J.A. (1988) Condition-dependent sex ornaments and field tests of sexual-selection theory.Am. Nat. 132, 454–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Frischknecht
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung Verhaltensökologie, Zoologisches InstitutUniversität BernHinterkappelenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations