Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 211–217 | Cite as

Sperm Competition in a Viviparous Fish

  • Constantino Macías-Garcia
  • Elsa Saborío


We investigated multiple paternity and sperm precedence in the Amarillo fish, Girardinichthys multiradiatus (Goodeidae). We allowed females to mate with two different-sized males consecutively and assessed the paternity of the ensuing broods using allozyme electrophoresis. We presented one-half of the females the larger, and the other half the smaller, male first. Allozyme variation among individuals was low, yielding conservative estimates of multiple paternity. Half the broods were of mixed paternity, but one male always sired more than 70% of the embryos in each brood. The proportion of the brood sired was not related to mating sequence, but when we classified males by relative size, the larger male of each pair usually fathered greater proportions of offspring than the smaller male. This association disappeared when we used the actual size of the males in the analysis. Instead, for any pair of males, the difference in number of offspring sired was correlated to differences in the rate of courtship displays, rather than size differences, suggesting that courtship intensity is a better predictor of paternity than male size. Within a pair, the larger male usually displayed more than the smaller one, but there was no correlation between male size and display rate across all males. Parsimony suggests a correlation between courtship rate and sperm production, but we cannot rule out the possibility that females allocate paternity according to the relative merits of the males.

multiple paternity Goodeidae cryptic female choice reproduction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bakker, T.C.M. & M. Milinski. 1991. Sequential female choice and the previous male effect in sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 205-210.Google Scholar
  2. Bisazza, A. 1997. Sexual selection constrained by internal fertilization in the livebearing fish Xenotoca eiseni. Anim. Behav. 54: 1347-1355.Google Scholar
  3. Colegrave, N., T.R. Birkhead & C.M. Lessells. 1995. Sperm precedence in zebra finches does not require special mechanisms of sperm competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 259: 223-228.Google Scholar
  4. Constantz, G.D. 1984. Sperm competition in poeciliid fishes. pp. 465-485. In: R.L. Smith (ed.) Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  5. Constantz, G.D. 1989. Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. pp. 33-50. In: G.K. Meffe & F.S. Snelson, Jr. (ed.) Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae), Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice, Princeton University Press, Princeton. 501 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, J.P., L. Zane, S. Francescato & A. Pilastro. 2003. Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421: 360-363.Google Scholar
  8. Farr, J.A. 1976. Social facilitation of male sexual behavior, intrasexual competition, and sexual selection in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evolution 30: 707-717.Google Scholar
  9. Farr, J.A. 1980. Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae). An experimental study of the effects of intermale competition, female choice, and sexual selection. Behaviour 74: 39-91.Google Scholar
  10. Farr, J.A. & W.F. Herrnkind. 1974. A quantitative analysis of social interactions of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae) as a function of population density. Anim. Behav. 22: 582-591.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzsimons, J.M. 1972. A revision of two genera of goodeid fishes (Cyprinodontiformes, Osteichthyes) from the Mexican Plateau. Copeia 1972: 728-756.Google Scholar
  12. Grudzien, T.A. & B.J. Turner. 1984a. Direct evidence that the Ilyodon morphs are a single biological species. Evolution 38: 402-407.Google Scholar
  13. Grudzien, T.A. & B.J. Turner. 1984b. Genetic identity and geographic differentiation of trophically dichotomous Ilyodon (Teleostei: Goodeidae). Copeia 1984: 102-107.Google Scholar
  14. Hillis, D.M., C. Moritz & B.K. Mable (ed.) 1996. Molecular Systematics, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Massachusetts. 588 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Halliday, T.R. 1983. The study of mate choice. pp. 3-32. In: P. Bateson (ed.) Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  16. Hubbs, C.L. & C.L. Turner. 1939. Studies of the fishes of the order Cyprinodontiformes. XVI. A revision of the Goodeidae. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 42. 72 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Janetos, A.C. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: A theoretical analysis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 211-216.Google Scholar
  18. Macías Garcia, C. 1991. Sexual behaviour and trade-offs in the viviparous fish Girardinichthys multiradiatus. Ph.D. thesis, Norwich, University of East Anglia. England. 135 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Macías Garcia, C. 1994. Social behavior and operational sexratios in the viviparous fish Girardinichthys multiradiatus. Copeia 1994: 919-925.Google Scholar
  20. Macías Garcia, C., G. Jimenez & B. Contreras. 1994. Correlational evidence of a sexually-selected handicap. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35: 253-259.Google Scholar
  21. Macías Garcia, C., E. Saborío & C. Berea. 1998. Does malebiased predation lead to male scarcity in viviparous fish? J. Fish Biol. 53(Suppl. A): 104-117.Google Scholar
  22. Macías Garcia, C. & A. Valero. 2001. Context-dependent sexual mimicry in the viviparous fish Girardinichthys multiradiatus. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 13: 331-339.Google Scholar
  23. Macías Garcia, C & Burt de Perera, T. 2002. Ultraviolet-based female preferences in a viviparous fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52: 1-6.Google Scholar
  24. Marshall, T.C., J. Slate, L. Kruuk & J.M. Pemberton. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7: 639-655.Google Scholar
  25. Matthews, I.M., J.P. Evans & A.E. Magurran. 1997. Male display rate reveals ejaculate characteristics in the Trinidadian guppy Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 264: 695-700.Google Scholar
  26. Mazalov, V., N. Perrin & Y. Dombrowsky. 1996. Adaptive search and information updating in sequential mate choice. Amer. Nat. 148: 123-137.Google Scholar
  27. Mendoza, G. 1939. The reproductive cycle of the viviparous teleost, Neotoca bilineata, a member of the family Goodeidae. Biol. Bull. 76: 359-370.Google Scholar
  28. Mendoza, G. 1962. The reproductive cycles of three viviparous teleosts, Alloophorus robustus, Goodea luitpoldii and Neoophorus diazi. Biol. Bull. 123: 351-365.Google Scholar
  29. Sullivan, M.S. 1994. Mate choice as an information gathering process under time constraint: Implications for behaviour and signal design. Anim. Behav. 47: 141-151.Google Scholar
  30. Tinbergen, N. 1951. The Study of Instinct, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 228 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, B.J. & Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought, Princeton University Press. 307 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Wittenberger, J.F. 1983. Tactics of mate choice. pp. 435-447. In: P. Bateson (ed.) Mate Choice, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantino Macías-Garcia
    • 1
  • Elsa Saborío
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de EcologíaUNAMCoyoacán, D.F.México
  2. 2.Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de EcologíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations