Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 10, pp 1601–1607 | Cite as

Inbreeding level does not induce female discrimination between sibs and unrelated males in guppies

  • Palestina Guevara-Fiore
  • Gunilla Rosenqvist
  • Penelope J. Watt
Original Paper

Abstract

Significant empirical evidence has demonstrated the importance of discriminative mate choice as a mechanism to avoid inbreeding. Incestuous mating can be avoided by recognition of kin. The guppy, Poecilia reticulata, is a livebearer with a polygamous mating system and active female choice. Despite potential inbreeding costs in the guppy, Viken et al. (Ethology 112:716–723, 2006) and Pitcher et al. (Genetica 134:137–146, 2008) have found that females do not discriminate between sibs and unrelated males. However, populations experiencing different inbreeding histories can have different levels of inbreeding avoidance, and it is possible that the lack of inbreeding avoidance observed in guppies is a consequence of using outbred fish only. Here we tested the preference of female guppies with different inbreeding coefficients, for olfactory cues of males that were either unrelated but had the same inbreeding coefficient, or were related (i.e. brother) with the same inbreeding coefficient. We found no evidence that female guppies preferred unrelated males with the same inbreeding coefficient. Moreover, inbreeding level did not influence female preference for unrelated males, suggesting that inbreeding history in a population has no influence on female discrimination of unrelated males in guppies.

Keywords

Sexual selection Olfactory cues Odour Mate choice Female preference 

References

  1. Aeschlimann PB, Häberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119–126Google Scholar
  2. Ala-Honkola O, Uddström A, Pauli BD, Lindström K (2009) Strong inbreeding depression in male mating behaviour in a poeciliid fish. J Evol Biol 22:1396–1406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Archard GA, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, van Oosterhout C (2008) Female guppies (Poecilia reticulata) show no preference for conspecific chemosensory cues in the field or an artificial flow chamber. Behaviour 145:1329–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arkush KD, Giese AR, Mendonca HL, McBride AM, Marty GD, Hedrick PW (2002) Resistance to three pathogens in the endangered winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): effects of inbreeding and major histocompatibility complex genotypes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:966–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becher SA, Magurran AE (2004) Multiple mating and reproductive skew in Trinidadian guppies. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Series B 271:1009–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilde T, Lubin Y, Smith D, Schneider JM, Maklakov AA (2005) The transition to social inbred mating systems in spiders: role of inbreeding tolerance in a subsocial predecessor. Evolution 59:160–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Ecol 8:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J (2006) Fish cognition and behavior. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen LB, Dearborn DC (2004) Great frigatebirds, Fregata minor, choose mates that are genetically similar. Anim Behav 68:1229–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crapon de Caprona MD, Ryan MJ (1990) Conspecific mate recognition in swordtails, Xiphophorus nigrensis and X. pygmaeus (Poeciliidae): olfactory and visual cues. Anim Behav 39:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crnokrak P, Barrett SCH (2002) Perspective: purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56:2347–2358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Croft CP, Albanese B, Arrowsmith BJ, Botham M, Webster M, Krause J (2003) Sex-biased movement in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Oecologia 137:62–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Croft DP, Arrowsmith BJ, Webster M, Krause J (2004a) Intra-sexual preferences for familiar fish in male guppies. J Fish Biol 64:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Croft DP, Krause J, James R (2004b) Social networks in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Biol Sci Series B 271:S516–S519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duarte LC, Bouteiller C, Fontanillas P, Petit E, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding in the greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 57:638–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Edvardsson M, Rodriguez-Munoz R, Tregenza T (2008) No evidence that female bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, use remating to reduce costs of inbreeding. Anim Behav 75:1519–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eikenaar C, Komdeur J, Richardson DS (2008) Natal dispersal patterns are not associated with inbreeding avoidance in the Seychelles Warbler. J Evol Biol 21:1106–1116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fessehaye Y, Komen H, Kezk MA, van Arendonk JAM, Bovenhuis H (2007) Effects of inbreeding on survival, body weight and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Aquaculture 264:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG (2006) Female swordtail fish use chemical cues to select well-fed mates. Anim Behav 72:721–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsberg LA, Dannewitz J, Petersson E, Grahn M (2007) Influence of genetic dissimilarity in the reproductive success and mate choice of brown trout—females fishing for optimal MHC dissimilarity. J Evol Biol 20:1859–1869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Frommen JG, Bakker TCM (2006) Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks. Biol Lett 2:232–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Frommen JG, Mehlis M, Brendler C, Bakker TCM (2007) Shoaling decisions in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus)—familiarity, kinship and inbreeding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerlach G, Lysiak N (2006) Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in zebrafish, Danio rerio, is based on phenotype matching. Anim Behav 71:1371–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerlach G, Hodgins-Davis A, Avolio C, Schunter C (2008) Kin recognition in zebrafish: a 24-hour window for olfactory imprinting. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:2165–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gow JL (2008) The mating game: do opposites really attract? Mol Ecol 17:1399–1400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths SW, Magurran AE (1998) Sex and schooling behaviour in the Trinidadian guppy. Anim Behav 56:689–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Guevara-Fiore P, Skinner A, Watt PJ (2009) Do male guppies distinguish virgin females from recently mated ones? Anim Behav 77:425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guevara-Fiore P, Stapley J, Krause J, Ramnarine IW, Watt PJ (2010) Male mate-searching strategies and female cues: how do male guppies find receptive females? Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Haikola S, Singer MC, Pen I (2004) Has inbreeding depression led to avoidance of sib mating in the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia)? Evol Ecol 18:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hain TJA, Neff BD (2007) Multiple paternity and kin recognition mechanisms in a guppy population. Mol Ecol 16:3938–3946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansson B, Hasselquist D, Bensch S (2004) Do female great reed warblers seek extra-pair fertilizations to avoid inbreeding? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:S290–S292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansson B, Jack L, Christians JK, Pemberton JM, Akesson M, Westerdahl H, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2007) No evidence for inbreeding avoidance in a great reed warbler population. Behav Ecol 18:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hedrick PW, Kalinowski ST (2000) Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat 55:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Houde AE (1987) Mate choice based upon naturally-occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Evolution 41:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Houde AE (1994) Effect of artificial selection on male color patterns on mating preference of female guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 256:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Houde AE (1997) Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Hughes KA, Du L, Rodd FH, Reznick DN (1999) Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 58:907–916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Jansson N, Uller T, Olsson M (2005) Female dragons, Ctenophorus pictus, do not prefer scent from unrelated males. Aust J Zool 53:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jennions MD, Hunt J, Graham R, Brooks R (2004) No evidence for inbreeding avoidance through postcopulatory mechanisms in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 58:2472–2477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Johansson BG, Jones TM (2007) The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biol Rev 82:265–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Keane B, Creel SR, Waser PM (1996) No evidence of inbreeding avoidance or inbreeding depression in a social carnivore. Behav Ecol 7:480–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keller LF, Arcese P (1998) No evidence for inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Am Nat 152:380–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Keller L, Fournier D (2002) Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol 13:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelley JL, Graves JA, Magurran AE (1999) Familiarity breeds contempt in guppies. Nature 401:661–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kokko H, Ots I (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:467–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Konior M, Keller L, Radwan J (2005) Effect of inbreeding and heritability of sperm competition success in the bulb mite Rhizoglyphus robini. Heredity 94:577–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lampert KP, Bernal XE, Rand AS, Mueller UG, Ryan MJ (2006) No evidence for female mate choice based on genetic similarity in the tungara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:796–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2001) 'Good genes as heterozygosity': the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1279–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liley NR, Wishlow W (1974) Interaction of endocrine and experiential factors in regulation of sexual behavior in female guppy Poecilia reticulata. Behaviour 48:185–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lyons EJ, Frodsham AJ, Zhang L, Hill AVS, Amos W (2009) Consanguinity and susceptibility to infectious diseases in humans. Biol Lett 5:574–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Magurran AE, Seghers BH, Shaw PW, Carvalho GR (1994) Schooling preferences for familiar fish in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. J Fish Biol 45:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mariette M, Kelley JL, Brooks R, Evans JP (2006) The effects of inbreeding on male courtship behaviour and coloration in guppies. Ethology 112:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mays HL, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. McLennan DA, Ryan MJ (1997) Responses to conspecific and heterospecific olfactory cues in the swordtail Xiphophorus cortezi. Anim Behav 54:1077–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. McLennan DA, Ryan MJ (1999) Interspecific recognition and discrimination based upon olfactory cues in northern swordtails. Evolution 53:880–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Frommen JG (2008) Smells like sib spirit: kin recognition in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is mediated by olfactory cues. Anim Cogn 11:643–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Milinski M (2003) The function of mate choice in sticklebacks: optimizing MHC genetics. J Fish Biol 63:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nakadate M, Shikano T, Taniguchi N (2003) Inbreeding depression and heterosis in various quantitative traits of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Aquaculture 220:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neff BD, Pitcher TE, Ramnarine IW (2008) Inter-population variation in multiple paternity and reproductive skew in the guppy. Mol Ecol 17:2975–2984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Olsen H (1998) Present knowledge of kin discrimination in salmonids. Genetica 104:295–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Ortego J, Calabuig G, Cordero PJ, Aparicio JM (2007) Egg production and individual genetic diversity in lesser kestrels. Mol Ecol 16:2383–2392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peters A, Michiels NK (1996) Evidence for lack of inbreeding avoidance by selective simultaneous hermaphrodite. Invertebr Biol 115:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pitcher TE, Neff BD, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2003) Multiple mating and sequential mate choice in guppies: females trade up. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1623–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pitcher TE, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2008) Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Genetica 134:137–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. R Core Development Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  73. Radwan J (2003) Inbreeding depression in fecundity and inbred line extinction in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. Heredity 90:371–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Rätti O, Hovi M, Lundberg A, Tegelstrom H, Alatalo RV (1995) Extra-pair paternity and male characteristics in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T (2004) Inbreeding in the seychelles warbler: environment-dependent maternal effects. Evolution 58:2037–2048PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Russell ST, Kelley JL, Graves JA, Magurran AE (2004) Kin structure and shoal composition dynamics in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Oikos 106:520–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W (2009) Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav Ecol 20:416–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Schjørring S, Jager I (2007) Incestuous mate preference by a simultaneous hermaphrodite with strong inbreeding depression. Evolution 61:423–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Schmoll T, Quellmalz A, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2005) Genetic similarity between pair mates is not related to extrapair paternity in the socially monogamous coal tit. Anim Behav 69:1013–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Males with high genetic similarity to females sire more offspring in sperm competition in Peron's tree frog Litoria peronii. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shikano T, Taniguchi N (2002) Heterosis for neonatal survival in the guppy. J Fish Biol 60:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shohet AJ, Watt PJ (2004) Female association preferences based on olfactory cues in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick JL, Desjardins JK, Neff BD, Quinn JS, Balshine S (2008) The role of genetic relatedness among social mates in a cooperative breeder. Behav Ecol 19:816–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Swindell WR, Bouzat JL (2006) Reduced inbreeding depression due to historical inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster: evidence for purging. J Evol Biol 19:1257–1264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Szulkin M, Garant D, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2007) Inbreeding depression along a life-history continuum in the great tit. J Evol Biol 20:1531–1543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17:225–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Van Oosterhout C, Trigg RE, Carvalho GR, Magurran AE, Hauser L, Shaw PW (2003) Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J Evol Biol 16:273–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Viken A, Fleming IA, Rosenqvist G (2006) Premating avoidance of inbreeding absent in female guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 112:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Krause J (2004) The effects of habitat- and diet-based cues on association preferences in three-spined sticklebacks. Behav Ecol 15:925–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zajitschek SRK, Evans JP, Brooks R (2006) Independent effects of familiarity and mating preferences for ornamental traits on mating decisions in guppies. Behav Ecol 17:911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Palestina Guevara-Fiore
    • 1
  • Gunilla Rosenqvist
    • 2
  • Penelope J. Watt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal & Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Centre for Conservation BiologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations