Nest defense in the face of cuckoldry: evolutionary rather than facultative adaptation to chronic paternity loss.
Cichlid
Multiple paternity
Parental care
Parental investment
Paternal care adjustment
Variabilichromis moorii
Journal
BMC evolutionary biology
ISSN: 1471-2148
Titre abrégé: BMC Evol Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966975
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 11 2019
04 11 2019
Historique:
received:
13
03
2019
accepted:
17
10
2019
entrez:
6
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
23
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Raising unrelated offspring is typically wasteful of parental resources and so individuals are expected to reduce or maintain low levels of parental effort when their parentage is low. This can involve facultative, flexible adjustments of parental care to cues of lost parentage in the current brood, stabilizing selection for a low level of paternal investment, or an evolutionary reduction in parental investment in response to chronically low parentage. We studied parental care in Variabilichromis moorii, a socially monogamous, biparental cichlid fish, whose mating system is characterized by frequent cuckoldry and whose primary form of parental care is offspring defense. We combine field observations with genetic parentage analyses to show that while both parents defend their nest against intruding con- and hetero-specifics, males and females may do so for different reasons. Males in the study group (30 breeding pairs) sired 0-100% (median 83%) of the fry in their nests. Males defended less against immediate threats to the offspring, and more against threats to their territories, which are essential for the males' future reproductive success. Males also showed no clear relationship between their share of defense and their paternity of the brood. Females, on the other hand, were related to nearly all the offspring under their care, and defended almost equally against all types of threats. Overall, males contributed less to defense than females and we suggest that this asymmetry is the result of an evolutionary response by males to chronically high paternity loss in this species. Although most males in the current study group achieved high parentage in their nests, the average paternity in V. moorii, sampled across multiple seasons, is only about 55%. We highlight the importance and complexity of studying nest defense as a form of parental care in systems where defense may serve not only to protect current offspring, but also to ensure future reproductive success by maintaining a territory.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Raising unrelated offspring is typically wasteful of parental resources and so individuals are expected to reduce or maintain low levels of parental effort when their parentage is low. This can involve facultative, flexible adjustments of parental care to cues of lost parentage in the current brood, stabilizing selection for a low level of paternal investment, or an evolutionary reduction in parental investment in response to chronically low parentage.
RESULTS
We studied parental care in Variabilichromis moorii, a socially monogamous, biparental cichlid fish, whose mating system is characterized by frequent cuckoldry and whose primary form of parental care is offspring defense. We combine field observations with genetic parentage analyses to show that while both parents defend their nest against intruding con- and hetero-specifics, males and females may do so for different reasons. Males in the study group (30 breeding pairs) sired 0-100% (median 83%) of the fry in their nests. Males defended less against immediate threats to the offspring, and more against threats to their territories, which are essential for the males' future reproductive success. Males also showed no clear relationship between their share of defense and their paternity of the brood. Females, on the other hand, were related to nearly all the offspring under their care, and defended almost equally against all types of threats.
CONCLUSION
Overall, males contributed less to defense than females and we suggest that this asymmetry is the result of an evolutionary response by males to chronically high paternity loss in this species. Although most males in the current study group achieved high parentage in their nests, the average paternity in V. moorii, sampled across multiple seasons, is only about 55%. We highlight the importance and complexity of studying nest defense as a form of parental care in systems where defense may serve not only to protect current offspring, but also to ensure future reproductive success by maintaining a territory.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31684856
doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1528-7
pii: 10.1186/s12862-019-1528-7
pmc: PMC6829816
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
200Subventions
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund FWF
ID : P 27605
Pays : Austria
Références
Zoolog Sci. 2005 May;22(5):555-61
pubmed: 15930828
Mol Ecol. 2003 Nov;12(11):3173-7
pubmed: 14629396
Anim Behav. 1998 Jul;56(1):175-9
pubmed: 9710475
BMC Biol. 2019 Jan 31;17(1):2
pubmed: 30700283
Biotechniques. 1991 Apr;10(4):506-13
pubmed: 1867860
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):341-50
pubmed: 11958702
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Apr 22;279(1733):1506-14
pubmed: 22072611
Int J Evol Biol. 2013;2013:714304
pubmed: 24386589
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Feb;25(2):99-108
pubmed: 19762111
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Sep 7;277(1694):2627-35
pubmed: 20410042
PeerJ. 2014 Oct 09;2:e616
pubmed: 25320683
Anim Cogn. 2009 Sep;12(5):717-24
pubmed: 19462188
Behav Ecol. 2015 May-Jun;26(3):782-788
pubmed: 26023276
J Hered. 2001 Mar-Apr;92(2):167-72
pubmed: 11396575
Q Rev Biol. 2005 Mar;80(1):37-45
pubmed: 15884734
J Evol Biol. 2009 Sep;22(9):1800-12
pubmed: 19583699
Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 18;7:12517
pubmed: 27535478
Ecol Evol. 2018 Dec 30;9(1):192-200
pubmed: 30680106
Nature. 2003 Sep 11;425(6954):136-7
pubmed: 12968161
Mol Ecol. 2002 Nov;11(11):2195-212
pubmed: 12406233
Naturwissenschaften. 2018 Mar 26;105(3-4):26
pubmed: 29582140
Am Nat. 2002 Jun;159(6):687-705
pubmed: 18707390
Mol Ecol. 2018 Nov;27(21):4309-4321
pubmed: 30182504
Mol Ecol. 2008 May;17(10):2531-43
pubmed: 18430146
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Mar;87(6):2324-8
pubmed: 2315323
Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 May;10(3):551-5
pubmed: 21565056
J Evol Biol. 2013 Jan;26(1):155-62
pubmed: 23176707
PLoS Biol. 2013;11(3):e1001520
pubmed: 23555193
Nature. 2003 Apr 17;422(6933):716-9
pubmed: 12700761
Anim Cogn. 2003 Jun;6(2):87-92
pubmed: 12687419
J Exp Biol. 2011 Oct 1;214(Pt 19):3269-78
pubmed: 21900474
Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Feb;11(2):87-91
pubmed: 21237768