Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 309–317 | Cite as

Size-assortative pairing in the lotic amphipod Gammarus zaddachi, an examination of hypotheses and the influence of current speed

Original Paper


Three main hypotheses have been put forward to explain size-assortative pairing in gammarid amphipods: microhabitat separation, sexual selection and loading constraint. In order to determine which hypothesis best explains this phenomenon in the estuarine species Gammarus zaddachi, I first measured the body lengths and dry weights of precopula pairs collected from two field sites with substantially different current speeds. Second, I performed three laboratory experiments in order to estimate the importance of the following processes: (1) male choice; (2) male–male competition and (3) male–female acceptability. The loading constraint hypothesis seemed best supported by the data in that field-collected male G. zaddachi size correlated well with female size in precopula pairing in both fast and slow flowing water. In the laboratory, males preferred females of their same size group (large versus small), and ‘won’ them in the male–male competition experiments. Size-assortative pairing is thus likely a consequence of the loading constraints imposed upon these males by virtue of them having to carry and manoeuvre their partners through flowing water, while attempting to maintain station in an optimal microhabitat. Males may therefore forego the largest, most fecund females, in favour of a practicable payload (small male–large female pairings were rare). However, there seems to be a lower limit to this selection, indicated by the high degree of cannibalism on small females by large males.


Amphipods Current speed Mate-selection Loading constraint hypothesis Gammarus 


  1. Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1983) Why are males bigger than females in precopula pairs of Gammarus pulex. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson KG, Bronmark C, Herrmann J, Malmqvist B, Otto C, Sjostrom P (1986) Presence of sculpins (Cottus gobio) reduces drift and activity of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Hydrobiologia 133:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Clarkson K (1980) Mate selection and precopulatory guarding in Gammarus pulex. Zeitschr Tierpsychol 51:365–380Google Scholar
  4. Birkhead T, Møller A (1993) Female control of paternity. Trends Ecol Evol 8:100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollache L, Gambade G, Cézilly F (2000) The influence of microhabitat segregation on size assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (L.) (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Arch Hydrobiol 147:547–558Google Scholar
  6. Bollache L, Cézilly F (2004) Sexual selection on male body size and assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): field surveys and laboratory experiments. J Zool Lond 264:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borchardt D (1993) Effects of flow and refugia on drift loss of benthic macroinvertebrates: implications for habitat restoration in lowland streams. Freshwat Biol 29:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane M (1994) Population characteristics of Gammarus pulex (L.) from five English streams. Hydrobiologia 281:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crozier WJ, Snyder LH (1923) Selective coupling of gammarids. Biol Bulletin 45:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1996) Effects of natural variation in sex ratio and habitat structure on mate-guarding decisions in amphipods (Crustacea). Behaviour 133:985–996Google Scholar
  11. Einsele W (1960) Die Strömungsgeschwindigkeit als beherrschender Faktor bei den limnologischen Gestaltung der Gewässer. Osterr Fisch, Suppl 1:1–40Google Scholar
  12. Elwood RW, Gibson J, Neil S (1987) The amorous Gammarus: size assortative mating in G. pulex. Anim Behav 35:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elwood RW, Dick JTA (1990) The amorous Gammarus: the relationship between precopula duration and size-assortative mating in G. pulex. Anim Behav 39:828–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franken RJM, Batten S, Beijer JAJ, Gardeniers JJP, Scheffer M, Peeters ETHM (2006) Effects of interstitial refugia and current velocity on growth of the amphipod Gammarus pulex Linnaeus. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood PJ, Adams J (1984) Sexual dimorphism in Gammarus pulex: the effect of current flow on pre-copula pair formation. Freshwat Biol 14:203–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (1997) Size and pairing success in Gammarus duebeni: can females be too big? Anim Behav 54:1301–1308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume KD, Elwood RW, Dick JTA, Connagahan KM (2002) Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the timing hypothesis. Anim Behav 64:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hynes HBN (1970) The ecology of running waters. University of Liverpool Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  19. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S, Tuomi J (1994) Male choice and male–male competition in Idotea baltica (Crustacea, Isopoda). Ethology 96:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jormalainen V, Merilaita S (1995) Female resistance and duration of mate-guarding in three aquatic peracarids (Crustacea). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lepori F, Palm D, Malmqvist B (2005) Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. J Appl Ecol 42:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naylor C, Adams J (1987) Sexual dimorphism, drag constraints and male performance in Gammarus duebeni (Amphipoda). Oikos 48:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olyslager NJ, Williams DD (1993) Microhabitat selection by the lotic amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield: mechanisms for evaluating local substrate and current suitability. Can J Zool 71:2401–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Opsahl RW, Wellnitz T, Poff NL (2003) Current velocity and invertebrate grazing regulate stream algae: results of an in situ electrical exclusion. Hydrobiologia 499:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker GA (1974) Courtship persistence and female guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48:157–184Google Scholar
  26. Peeters ETHM, Gardeniers JJP (1998) Logistic regression as a tool for defining habitat requirements of two common gammarids. Freshwat Biol 39:605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plaistow SJ, Bollache L, Cézilly F (2003) Energetically costly precopulatory mate guarding in the amphipod Gammarus pulex: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 65:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rees CP (1972) The distribution of the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield as influenced by oxygen concentration, substratum, and current velocity. Trans Am Microsc Soc 91:514–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ridley M, Thompson D (1979) Size and mating in Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea: Isopoda). Zeitschr Tierpsychol 51:380–397Google Scholar
  30. Thompson DJ, Moule SJ (1983) Substrate selection and assortative mating in G. pulex. Hydrobiologia 99:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vogel S (1981) Life in Moving Fluids: the Physical Biology of Flow. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward PI (1983) Advantages and a disadvantage of large size for male Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ward PI (1985) The breeding behaviour of Gammarus duebeni. Hydrobiologia 121:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ward PI (1988) Sexual selection, natural selection, and body size in Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Am Nat 131:348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ward PI, Porter AH (1993) The relative roles of habitat structure and male–male competition in the mating system of Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a simulation study. Anim Behav 45:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams DD, Moore KA (1982) The effect of environmental factors on the activity of Gammarus pseudolimnaeus (Amphipoda). Hydrobiologia 96:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams DD, Moore KA (1989) Environmental complexity and the drifting behaviour of a running water amphipod. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1520–1530Google Scholar
  38. Williams DD, Williams NE (1998) Seasonal variation, export dynamics and consumption of freshwater invertebrates in an estuarine environment. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 46:393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesUniversity of Toronto at ScarboroughTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations