Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 449–455 | Cite as

Rising costs of care make spiny chromis discerning parents

  • Lyndon Alexander Jordan
  • James Edward Herbert-Read
  • Ashley J. W. Ward
Original Paper

Abstract

When the costs of parental care do not scale with the number of offspring being cared for, inclusion of non-descendant young into broods can be advantageous, leading to systems of alloparental care. However, if the cost of care scales with the number of offspring, selection may act against misdirected parental care. The spiny chromis, Acanthochromis polyacanthus, is a marine fish with extended biparental care, and broods that increase in size over the care period strongly suggest that alloparental care occurs in this species. However, A. polyacanthus parents directly provision their offspring by producing ectodermal mucus for their fry to feed on. The costs of such provisioning may scale with brood size, potentially increasing the costs of parental care. Using wild A. polyacanthus pairs, we tested whether foreign offspring are accepted into established broods, and measured how brood defence effort and mucal feeding scale with brood size. We found that A. polyacanthus discriminate between their own and foreign young, vigorously expelling experimentally introduced foreign offspring. Although defensive effort did not scale with brood size, mucal feeding was strongly dependent on brood size, and this increasing cost of care likely acts as the primary selective force on parental discrimination and rejection of foreign fry in A. polyacanthus.

Keywords

Alloparental Parental care Costs Marine Fish Acanthochromis polyacanthus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Jen and Russ at One Tree Island Research Station for their assistance in the field. We also wish to thank Brian Wisenden, Carl Smith, Carla Avolio and two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Funding was supplied by the University of Sydney.

Ethical standards

Australian ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Sydney’s Animal Ethics Committee (L04/9-2008/1/4877). After all observations were completed, the remaining fry were returned to their original parents, being accepted in all cases. Fry were in holding vessels for no longer than 300 min, and no deaths were recorded while in captivity.

References

  1. Bakker TCM, Mazzi D, Kraak SBM (2006) Broods of attractive three-spined stickleback males require greater paternal care. J Fish Biol 69:1164–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow GW (2000) The cichlid fishes. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumer LS (1982) A bibliography and categorization of bony fishes exhibiting parental care. Zool J Linn Soc 75:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth D, Alquezar R (2002) Food supplementation increases larval growth, condition and survival of Acanthochromis polyacanthus. J Fish Biol 60:1126–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burchard JE (1967) The family Cichlidae. In: Reed W (ed) Fish and fisheries of Northern Nigeria. Ministry of Agriculture Northern Nigeria, Zaria, pp 123–143Google Scholar
  6. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper WJ, Smith LL, Westneat MW (2009) Exploring the radiation of a diverse reef fish family: phylogenetics of the damselfishes (Pomacentridae), with new classifications based on molecular analyses of all genera. Mol Phylogenet Evol 52:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fraser SA, Wisenden BD, Keenleyside MHA (1993) Aggressive-behavior among convict cichlid (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum) fry of different sizes and its importance to brood adoption. Can J Zool 71:2358–2362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnston CE (1994) Nest association in fishes—evidence for mutualism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jordan LA, Brooks R (2010) The lifetime costs of increased male reproductive effort: courtship, copulation, and the Coolidge effect. J Evol Biol 23:2403–2409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kavanagh K (1998) Notes on the frequency and function of glancing behavior in juvenile Acanthochromis (Pomacentridae). Copeia 1998:493–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kavanagh KD (2000) Larval brooding in the marine damselfish Acanthochromis polyacanthus (Pomacentridae) is correlated with highly divergent morphology, ontogeny and lift-history traits. Bull Mar Sci 66:321–337Google Scholar
  13. Lack D (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Lazarus J, Inglis IR (1986) Shared and unshared parental investment, parent offspring conflict and brood size. Anim Behav 34:1791–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loiselle PV (1983) Filial cannibalism and egg recognition by males of the primitively custodial teleost Cyprinodon macularius californiensis Girard (Atherinomorpha, Cyprinodontidae). Ethol Sociobiol 4:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKaye KR, McKaye NM (1977) Communal care and kidnapping of young by parental cichlids. Evolution 31:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKaye KR, Mughogho DE, Lovullo TJ (1992) Formation of the selfish school. Environ Biol Fish 35:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Engqvist L, Frommen JG (2010) To eat or not to eat: egg-based assessment of paternity triggers fine-tuned decisions about filial cannibalism. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2627–2635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakazono A (1993) One-parent removal experiment in the brood-caring damselfish, Acanthochromis polyacanthus, with preliminary data on reproductive-biology. Aust J Mar Fresh Res 44:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neff BD (2003) Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature 422:716–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson CTJ, Elwood RW (1997) Parental state and offspring recognition in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis pulcher. Anim Behav 54:803–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noakes DLG (1979) Parent-touching behavior by young fishes—incidence, function and causation. Environ Biol Fish 4:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Riedman ML (1982) The evolution of alloparental care and adoption in mammals and birds. Q Rev Biol 57:405–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schutz M, Barlow GW (1997) Young of the Midas cichlid get biologically active nonnutrients by eating mucus from the surface of their parents. Fish Physiol Biochem 16:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sin YM, Ling KH, Lam TJ (1994) Passive transfer of protective immunity against ichthyophthiriasis from vaccinated mother to fry in tilapias, Oreochromis aureus. Aquaculture 120:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith C, Wootton RJ (1995) The costs of parental care in teleost fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 5:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Solomon NG, French JF (1997) Cooperative breeding in mammals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Thresher RE (1983) Habitat effects on reproductive success in the coral-reef fish, Acanthochromis polyacanthus (Pomacentridae). Ecology 64:1184–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thresher RE (1985a) Distribution, abundance, and reproductive success in the coral-reef fish Acanthochromis polyacanthus. Ecology 66:1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thresher R (1985b) Brood-directed parental aggression and early brood loss in the coral-reef fish, Acanthochromis polyacanthus (Pomacentridae). Anim Behav 33:897–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell D (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. Heinemann, London, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  32. Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2003) The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. Fish Fish 4:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wisenden BD (1999) Alloparental care in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wisenden BD, Keenleyside MHA (1992) Intraspecific brood adoption in convict cichlids—a mutual benefit. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wisenden BD, Keenleyside MHA (1995) Brood size and economy of brood defence: examining Lack’s hypothesis in a biparental cichlid fish. Environ Biol Fish 43:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wisenden BD, Pye TP (2009) Young convict cichlids use visual information to update olfactory homing cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wisenden BD, Lanfranconi-Izawa TL, Keenleyside MHA (1995) Fin digging and leaf lifting by the convict cichlid, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum: examples of parental food provisioning. Anim Behav 49:623–631Google Scholar
  38. Wisenden BD, Snekser JL, Stumbo AD, Leese ML (2008) Parental defence of an empty nest after catastrophic brood loss. Anim Behav 76:2059–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yanagisawa Y (1985) Parental strategy of the cichlid fish Perissodus microlepis, with particular reference to intraspecific brood farming out. Environ Biol Fish 12:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyndon Alexander Jordan
    • 1
  • James Edward Herbert-Read
    • 2
  • Ashley J. W. Ward
    • 2
  1. 1.Evolution & Ecology Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations