Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 855–864 | Cite as

Adoption and cuckoldry lead to alloparental care in the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), a non-group-living species with no evidence of nest site limitation

  • Kelly A. Stiver
  • Stephen H. Wolff
  • Suzanne H. Alonzo
Original Paper

Abstract

While extensive empirical and theoretical work has focused on the evolution of costly cooperation (particularly in group-living species), less attention has been paid to more low-risk or immediately beneficial forms of cooperation. In some non-group-living darters, alloparental care (or allocare) by subordinates has been noted to result from by-product benefits as small territorial (subordinate) males adopt and provide care to the abandoned eggs of large territorial (dominant) males. In the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), allocare also results from sneak fertilization. However, information on the rate of allocare by tessellated darters is contradictory: prior behavioral work suggested that it is very common, while a genetic examination showed males to primarily care for their own young. We found behavioral and genetic evidence of very high levels of allocare at our study location. The relative size of the assigned fathers of young to the alloparental male is consistent with the idea that initial allocare primarily results from sneak fertilization (“cuckoldry-based allocare”), but later allocare results from subordinate males caring at previously abandoned nests (“adoption-based allocare”). Larger males appeared to breed more frequently at different nests, but did not father more individual offspring than smaller males. Finally, low relatedness between abandoning and alloparenting males suggests that kin selection does not contribute to alloparental care. We discuss how variation in nest availability may explain the inconsistent findings of the rate of alloparental care in the tessellated darter, and how increased research in this and similar systems can expand our understanding of the evolution of cooperation.

Keywords

Cooperation Social evolution By-product benefits Parentage Ecological constraints Kin selection 

Supplementary material

265_2012_1334_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (198 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 197 kb)

References

  1. Balshine S, Buston PM (2008) Cooperation in fish. In: Magnhagen C, Braithwaite V, Forsgren E, Kapoor BG (eds) Fish behaviour ecology. Science Publishers, Inc, Enfield, USA pp 437–484Google Scholar
  2. Beneteau CL, Mandrak NE, Heath DD (2007) Characterization of eight polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers for the greenside darter, Etheostoma blennioides (Percidae). Mol Ecol Notes 7:641–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmüller R, Johnstone RA, Russell AF, Bshary R (2007) Integrating cooperative breeding into theoretical concepts of cooperation. Behav Process 76:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessert ML, Brozek J, Orti G (2007) Impact of nest substrate limitations of patterns of illegitimacy in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). J Hered 98:716–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boomsma JJ (2007) Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr Biol 17:R673–R683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bukacinski D, Bukacinski M, Lubjuhn T (2000) Adoption of chicks and the level of relatedness in common gull, Larus canus, colonies: DNA fingerprinting analyses. Anim Behav 59:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buston PM, Balshine S (2007) Cooperating in the face of uncertainty: a consistent framework for understanding the evolution of cooperation. Behav Process 76:152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock T (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock T (2009) Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature 462:51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connor RC (1995) Altruism among non-relatives: alternative to the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’. Trends Ecol Evol 10:84–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connor R (2007) Invested, extracted and byproduct benefits: a modified scheme for the evolution of cooperation. Behav Process 76:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad KF, Clarke MF, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1998) Paternity and the relatedness of helpers in the cooperatively breeding bell miner. Condor 100:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Constantz GD (1979) Social dynamics and parental care in the tessellated darter (Pisces: Percidae). Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil 313:131–138Google Scholar
  14. Constantz GD (1985) Allopaternal care in the tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi (Pisces: Percidae). Env Biol Fish 14:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeWoody JA, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Avise JC (2000) Parentage and nest guarding in the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) assayed by microsatellite markers (Perciformes: Percidae). Copeia 2000:740–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeWoody JA, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Avise JC (2001) Genetic documentation of filial cannibalism in nature. P Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5090–5092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DuVal EH (2007) Adaptive advantages of cooperative courtship for subordinate male lance tailed manakins. Am Nat 169:423–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2006) Family insurance: kin selection and cooperative breeding in a solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:582–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emlen ST (1991) Adaptive versus nonadaptive explanations of behavior: the case of alloparental helping. Am Nat 138:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farmer MB, Alonzo SH (2008) Competition for territories does not explain allopaternal care in the tessellated darter. Env Biol Fish 83:391–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher HS, Hoekstra HE (2010) Competition drives cooperation among closely related sperm of deer mice. Nature 463:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frank SA (2003) Repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution 57:693–705PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gabel JM, Dakin EE, Freeman BJ, Porter BA (2007) Isolation and identification of eight microsatellite loci in the Cherokee darter (Etheostoma scotti) and their variability in other members of the general Etheostoma, Ammocyrpta, and Percina. Mol Ecol Notes 8:149–151Google Scholar
  24. Gale WF, Deutsch WG (1985) Fecundity and spawning frequency of captive tessellated darters—fractional spawners. T Am Fish Soc 114:220–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green WW, Mirza RS, Pyle GG (2008) Kin recognition and cannibalistic behaviours by adult male fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Naturwissenschaften 95:269–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffin AS, West SA (2003) Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science 302:634–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hain TJA, Neff BD (2009) Kinship affects innate responses to a predator in bluegill Lepomis macrochirus larvae. J Fish Biol 75:728–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behaviour. Am Nat 97:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamilton WD (1964a) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theoret Biol 7:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton WD (1964b) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theoret Biol 7:17–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hatchwell BJ, Komdeur J (2000) Ecological constraints, life history traits and the evolution of cooperative breeding. Anim Behav 59:1079–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudman SP, Grose MJ, Landis JB, Skalski GT, Wiley EO (2008) Twenty-three microsatellite DNA loci for population genetic studies and parentage assignment in orangethroat darter, Etheostoma spectabile. Mol Ecol Res 8:1483–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes WHO, Oldroyd BP, Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is the key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320:1213–1216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jadwiszczak P (2009) Rundom Pro 3.14. Software for classical and computer-intensive statistics available free from the New Rundom Site (http://pjadw.tripod.com). Accessed July 2009
  35. Jones O, Wang J (2009) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Res 10:551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krakauer AH (2005) Kin selection and cooperative courtship in wild turkeys. Nature 434:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyon BE, Eadie JMcA (2008) Conspecific brood parasitism in birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:343–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDonald DB, Potts WK (1994) Cooperative display and relatedness among males in a lek mating bird. Science 266:1030–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nastase AJ, Sherry DA (1997) Effect of brood mixing on location and survivorship of juvenile Canada geese. Anim Behav 54:503–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neff BD (2003) Paternity and condition affect cannibalistic behavior in nest-tending bluegill sunfish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O’Brien SJ (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions. Nature 351:562–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Page LM (1983) Handbook of darters. TFH, Neptune CityGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennisi E (2005) How did cooperative behavior evolve? Science 309:93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pizzari T, Foster KR (2008) Sperm sociality: cooperation, altruism, and spite. PLOS Biol 6:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter BA, Fiumera AC, Avise JC (2002) Egg mimicry and alloparental care: two mate-attracting tactics by which nesting striped darter (Etheostoma virgatum) males enhance reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solomon NG, French JF (1997) Cooperative breeding in mammals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiver KA, Alonzo SH (2009) Parental and mating effort: is there necessarily a trade-off? Ethology 115:1101–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stiver KA, Alonzo SH (2010) Large males have a mating advantage in a species of darter with smaller, alloparental males, Etheostoma olmstedi. Curr Zool 56:1–5Google Scholar
  50. Stiver KA, Alonzo SH (2011) Alloparental care increases mating success. Behav Ecol 22:206–211. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tonnis BD (2006) Microsatellite DNA markers for the rainbow darter, Etheostoma caeruleum (Percidae), and their potential utility for other darter species. Mol Ecol Notes 6:230–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Unger LM, Sargent RC (1988) Alloparental care in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: females prefer males with eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang J (2011) COANCESTRY: a program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Mol Ecol Res 11:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winn HE (1958) Comparative reproductive behavior and ecology of fourteen species of darter (Pisces-Percidae). Ecol Monogr 28:155–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wisenden BD (1999) Alloparental care in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 9:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly A. Stiver
    • 1
  • Stephen H. Wolff
    • 2
  • Suzanne H. Alonzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Osborn Memorial LaboratoriesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations