Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 197–205 | Cite as

Feeding efficiency and food competition in coexisting sexual and asexual livebearing fishes of the genus Poecilia

  • Kristin ScharnweberEmail author
  • Martin Plath
  • Michael Tobler


Considering its immediate costs of producing dispensable males, the maintenance of sexual reproduction is a major paradox in evolutionary biology. Asexual lineages that do not face such costs theoretically should replace sexuals over time. Nonetheless, several systems are known in which closely related sexual and asexual lineages stably coexist. In the present study, we studied a sexual/asexual mating complex of a sperm-dependent parthenogenetic fish (amazon molly, Poecilia formosa) and its sexual congeners, the sailfin molly P. latipinna and the Atlantic molly P. mexicana. We asked whether differences in feeding behavior could contribute to their stable coexistence. We conducted a laboratory experiment to compare feeding efficiencies and also measured the competitive abilities between the two reproductive forms. Additionally, we measured gut fullness of fishes caught in natural habitats. Contrary to our predictions, we could not find P. formosa to be less efficient in feeding. We argue that food competition in mollies plays a minor role in mediating coexistence between closely related asexual and sexual mollies.


Aggressive interactions Competition Evolution of sex Foraging Gynogenesis 



We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. Furthermore, we would like to thank Christian Kaufman (Texas A&M University) and Ingo Schlupp (University of Oklahoma) for their help in field, and Kirk Winemiller (Texas A&M University) for kindly providing laboratory facilities. M. Ziege kindly provided the drawings of a sailfin and an amazon molly. Financial support came from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the German Society for Ichthyology (to KS), the DFG (PL 470/3-1) and the Herrmann-Willkomm-Foundation (to MP), as well as the Swiss National Science Foundation (to MT). The Mexican government (DGOPA.06192.240608-1562) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department kindly issued permits (SPR-1008-340).


  1. Agrawal AF (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balsano JS, Abramoff P, Darnell RM (1972) Electrophoretic evidence of triploidy associated with populations of gynogenetic teleost Poecilia formosa. Copeia 1972:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsano JS, Randle EJ, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ (1985) Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia. Environ Biol Fish 12:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1998) Why sex and recombination? Science 281:1986–1990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature, the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Case TJ, Taper ML (1986) On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors. Evolution 40:366–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darnell RM (1962) Fishes of the Rio Tamesi and related coastal lagoons in east-central Mexico. Publ Inst Mar Sci Univ Tex 8:299–365Google Scholar
  8. Darnell RM, Abramoff P (1968) Distribution of the gynogenetic fish Poecilia formosa with remarks on the evolution of the species. Copeia 354–361Google Scholar
  9. Fischer C, Schlupp I (2010) Feeding rates in the sailfin mollie Poecilia latipinna and its coexisting sexual parasite, the gynogenetic Amazon mollie Poecilia formosa. J Fish Biol 77:285–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabor C, Ryan MJ (2001) Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray M, Weeks S (2001) Niche breadth in clonal and asexual fish (Poeciliopsis): a test of the frozen niche variation model. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1313–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heubel KU, Plath M (2008) Influence of male harassment and female competition on female feeding behaviour in a sexual-asexual mating complex of mollies (Poecilia mexicana, P. formosa). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1689–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbs C (1964) Interactions between a bisexual fish species and its gynogenetic sexual parasite. Bull Tex Mem Mus 8:1–72Google Scholar
  14. Hubbs C, Hubbs LC (1932) Apparent parthenogenesis in nature in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science 76:628–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hubbs C, Kuehne RA, Ball JC (1953) The Fishes of the upper Guadelupe River, Texas. Tex J Sci 2:216–244Google Scholar
  16. Jokela J, Dybdahl MF, Lively CM (2009) The maintenance of sex, clonal dynamics, and host-parasite coevolution in a mixed population of sexual and asexual snails. Am Nat 174:S43–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kallman KD (1962) Population genetics of the gynogenetic Teleost, Mollienesia formosa (Girard). Evolution 16:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kokko H, Heubel KU, Rankin DJ (2008) How populations persist when asexuality requires sex: the spatial dynamics of coping with sperm parasites. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:817–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladle RJ (1992) Parasites and sex: catching the Red Queen. Trends Ecol Evol 7:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lampert KP, Schartl M (2008) The origin and evolution of a unisexual hybrid: Poecilia formosa. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 363:2901–2909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lively C, Lloyd D (1990) The cost of biparental sex under individual selection. Am Nat 135:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller RR (1983) Checklist and key to the mollies of Mexico (Pisces, Poeciliidae, Poecilia, Subgenus Mollienesia). Copeia 817–822Google Scholar
  24. Moore WS, McKay FE (1971) Coexistence in unisexual-bisexual species complexes of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Ecology 52:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moyle PB, Light T (1996) Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assembly theory. Biol Conserv 78:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niemeitz A, Kreutzfeldt R, Schartl M, Schlupp I (2002) Male mating behaviour of a molly, Poecilia latipunctata: a third host for the sperm-dependent Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. Acta Ethol 5:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Padur L, Wedekind J, Öztürk Ö, Streit B, Tiedemann R, Plath M (2009) Do audience effect lead to relaxed male sexual harassment? Behaviour 146:1739–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parzefall J (1969) Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollienesia-Arten einschliesslich einer Höhlenform von M. sphenops. Behaviour 33:1–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Parzefall J (2001) A review of morphological and behavioural changes in the cave molly, Poecilia mexicana, from Tabasco, Mexico. Environ Biol Fish 62:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plath M, Parzefall J, Schlupp I (2003) The role of sexual harassment in cave- and surface-dwelling populations of the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rasch EM, Monaco PJ, Balsano JS (1982) Cytophotometric and autoradiographic evidence for functional apomixis in a gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa and its related, triploid unisexuals. Histochemistry 73:515–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan MJ, Dries LA, Batra P, Hillis DM (1996) Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies. Anim Behav 52:1225–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schartl M, Wilde B, Schlupp I, Parzefall J (1995) Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy. Evolution 49:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlupp I (2005) The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Systemat 36:399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlupp I (2009) Behavior of fishes in the sexual/unisexual mating system of the Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa). In: Brockmann HJ, Snowdon C, Roper T, Naguib M, Wynne-Edwards K (eds) Advances in the Study of Behavior 39. Elsevier Academic Press Inc, San Diego, pp 153–183Google Scholar
  36. Schlupp I, Ryan MJ (1996) Mixed-species shoals and the maintenance of a sexual-asexual mating system in mollies. Anim Behav 52:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlupp I, Nanda I, Döbler M, Lamatsch DK, Epplen JT, Parzefall J, Schmid M, Schartl A (1998) Dispendable and indispendable genes in an ameiotic fish, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa. Cytogenet Cell Genet 80:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M (2002) Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. J Biogeogr 29:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tobler M (2008) Divergence in trophic ecology characterizes colonization of extreme habitats. Biol J Linn Soc 95:517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tobler M, Schlupp I (2005) Parasites in sexual and asexual molly species of the genus Poecilia (Poeciliidae, Teleostei): A case for the Red Queen? Biology Letters 1(2):166–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tobler M, Schlupp I (2010) Differntial susceptibility to food stress in neonates of sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae). Evol Ecol 24(1):39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tobler M, Wahli T, Schlupp I (2005) Comparison of parasite communities in native and introduced populations of sexual and asexual mollies of the genus Poecilia. J Fish Biol 67:1072–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner BJ (1982) The evolutionary genetics of a unisexual fish, Poecilia formosa. In: Barigozzi C (ed) Mechanisms of speciation. Alan R. Liss, New York, pp 265–305Google Scholar
  44. Vrijenhoek RC (1978) Coexistence of clones in a heterogenous environment. Science 199:549–552Google Scholar
  45. Vrijenhoek RC (1979) Factors affecting clonal diversity and coexistence. Am Zool 19:787–789Google Scholar
  46. Vrijenhoek RC (1998) Animal clones and diversity. BioScience 48:617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vrijenhoek RC, Pfeiler E (1997) Differential survival of sexual and asexual Poeciliopsis during environmental stress. Evolution 51:1593–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vrijenhoek RC, Dawley RM, Cole CJ, Bogart JP (1989) A list of the known unisexual vertebrates. In: Dawley RM, Bogart JP (eds) Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates, Bulletin 466. New York State Museum, New York, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  49. Weeks SC, Gaggiotti OE, Schenck RA, Spindler KP, Vrijenhoek RC (1992) Feeding behavior in sexual and clonal strains of Poecilopsis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wetherington JD, Schenck RA, Vrijenhoek RC (1989) The origins and ecological success of unisexual Poeciliopsis: The frozen niche-variation model. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF Jr (eds) Ecology and evolution of lifebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 259–275Google Scholar
  52. Williams GC (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. Winemiller KO (1993) Seasonality of reproduction by livebearing fishes in tropical rainforest streams. Oecologia 95:266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Scharnweber
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Plath
    • 2
  • Michael Tobler
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesLeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology & Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolution, Institute of Ecology, Evolution and DiversityJ.W. Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations