Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 569–573 | Cite as

Old but gold: males preferentially cannibalize young eggs

  • Martin Vallon
  • Katja U. Heubel
Original Article


Although counterintuitive at first sight, filial cannibalism is common in the animal kingdom and has been recognized as a mechanism to increase the cannibalizing parent’s lifetime reproductive success. However, previous evidence is often inconclusive and the adaptiveness of filial cannibalism is still not fully understood. We here address the notion that parents do not cannibalize at random but preferably consume offspring with a particular phenotype. To assess if differences in developmental stage and thus reproductive value of eggs trigger such selectivity, we experimentally presented male common gobies (Pomatoschistus microps) with two differently aged egg clutches within mixed broods. We found that males consumed significantly more young than old eggs. This result indicates that parents are not only able to discriminate between eggs based on developmental stage, but might use this to reduce the cost of partial filial cannibalism by selectively removing eggs of lower reproductive value.


Foster care Life history evolution Offspring age Paternal care Reproductive value Selective filial cannibalism Kin discrimination 



We thank the staff of Tvärminne Zoological Station for logistical support, Silke Probst for counting fish eggs, Nils Anthes for statistical advice and discussions, and Nils Anthes, Ines Häderer, and Tobias Gerlach for valuable comments on the manuscript. This project was financially supported by a grant from the Volkswagen foundation to KUH (grant number I/84 846).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study complies with all the relevant laws of Finland and was approved by Finnish authorities. All procedures were declared as class 0 experiments and inspected and approved by ELLA, Animal Experimental Board in Finland on site at Tvärminne zoological station in Hanko, Finland.


  1. Andrén MN, Kvarnemo C (2014) Filial cannibalism in a nest-guarding fish: females prefer to spawn in nests with few eggs over many. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1565–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4,
  3. Baylis JR (1981) The evolution of parental care in fishes, with reference to Darwin’s rule of male sexual selection. Environ Biol Fish 6:223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chin-Baarstad A, Klug H, Lindström K (2009) Should you eat your offspring before someone else does? Effect of an egg predator on filial cannibalism in the sand goby. Anim Behav 78:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forsgren E, Karlsson A, Kvarnemo C (1996) Female sand gobies gain direct benefits by choosing males with eggs in their nests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frommen JG, Brendler C, Bakker TCM (2007) The tale of the bad stepfather: male three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus L. recognize foreign eggs in their manipulated nest by egg cues alone. J Fish Biol 70:1295–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert SF (1985) Developmental biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldschmidt T, Bakker TCM, Feuth-de Bruijn E (1993) Selective copying in mate choice of female sticklebacks. Anim Behav 45:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heubel KU, Lindström K, Kokko H (2008) Females increase current reproductive effort when future access to males is uncertain. Biol Lett 4:224–227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones JC, Reynolds JD (1999) Costs of egg ventilation for male common gobies breeding in conditions of low dissolved oxygen. Anim Behav 57:181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Klug H, Alonzo SH, Bonsall MB (2012) Theoretical foundations of parental care. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M (eds) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–39Google Scholar
  13. Klug H, Bonsall MB (2007) When to care for, abandon, or eat your offspring: the evolution of parental care and filial cannibalism. Am Nat 170:886–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Klug H, Lindström K (2008) Hurry-up and hatch: selective filial cannibalism of slower developing eggs. Biol Lett 4:160–162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Korner-Nievergelt F, Roth T, von Felten S, Guélat J, Almasi B, Korner-Nievergelt P (2015) Bayesian data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kvarnemo C (2010) Parental care. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 451–467Google Scholar
  17. Lindström K, Hellström M (1993) Male size and parental care in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Ethol Ecol Evol 5:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Manica A (2002) Filial cannibalism in teleost fish. Biol Rev 77:261–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Manica A (2003) The effect of brood size and age on partial filial cannibalism in the scissortail sergeant. J Fish Biol 63:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manica A (2004) Parental fish change their cannibalistic behaviour in response to the cost-to-benefit ratio of parental care. Anim Behav 67:1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marconato A, Bisazza A (1986) Males whose nests contain eggs are preferred by female Cottus gobio L. (Pisces, Cottidae). Anim Behav 34:1580–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Frommen JG (2009) Nutritional benefits of filial cannibalism in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Naturwissenschaften 96:399–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nyman KJ (1953) Observations on the behaviour of Gobius microps. Acta Soc Fauna Flora Fenn 69:1–11Google Scholar
  26. Petersen CW, Marchetti K (1989) Filial cannibalism in the Cortez damselfish Stegastes rectifraenum. Evolution 43:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Polis GA (1981) The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:225–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pressley PH (1981) Parental effort and the evolution of nest-guarding tactics in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Evolution 35:282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,
  30. Rohwer S (1978) Parent cannibalism of offspring and egg raiding as a courtship strategy. Am Nat 112:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sargent RC (1992) Ecology of filial cannibalism in fish: theoretical perspectives. In: Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (eds) Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38–62Google Scholar
  32. Sikkel PC (1989) Egg presence and developmental stage influence spawning-site choice by female garibaldi. Anim Behav 38:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sikkel PC (1994) Filial cannibalism in a paternal-caring marine fish: the influence of egg developmental stage and position in the nest. Anim Behav 47:1149–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takegaki T, Yoshimoto Y, Matsumoto Y (2011) Filial cannibalism in the barred-chin blenny Rhabdoblennius ellipes: males do not preferentially eat young eggs. J Ethol 29:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vallon M, Grom C, Kalb N, Sprenger D, Anthes N, Lindström K, Heubel KU (2016) You eat what you are: personality-dependent filial cannibalism in a fish with paternal care. Ecol Evol (doi:  10.1002/ece3.1966)
  36. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Evolutionary EcologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations