Abstract
In polygamy, individuals interact in a non-random manner to shape reproductive networks. However, relative importance of behavior versus individual physical traits (e.g., body size) in determining access to partners and reproductive success varies by species and is poorly understood in small-bodied aquatic species for which direct observations are challenging in the wild. Here, we coupled automated individual tracking and genetic parentage techniques to characterize reproductive networks and their consequences on reproductive success in bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), a nest-building stream fish native to the southeastern USA. Fish were marked with 12-mm passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, and loop-shaped PIT antennas were deployed around 18 nests to monitor behavioral encounters of 311 individuals (34 males and 277 females and immature males) during the spawning season in 2017. After spawning, genetic samples of 326 young-of-the-year fish (i.e., offspring) were collected. The mating system was polygynandrous, and factors affecting access to partners and reproductive success differed between males and females. Male body size did not affect number of encounters with females and reproductive success, instead behavior indexing reproductive effort (number and size of nests occupied) explained variation in reproductive success. On the contrary, body size was a key determinant of female reproductive success. Fecundity (i.e., number of eggs) increased with body size, and higher encounters rates with males did not result in higher reproductive success. In males and females, mating with more partners led to higher reproductive success, which may have contributed to the evolution and maintenance of polygynandry in this species.
Significance statement
Is bigger better? This question has been investigated with respect to animal mating behavior and reproductive success, and the answer appears to vary by species. Using an intensive individual-based approach with PIT antenna and molecular markers, we show that behavior outweighed body size in mediating reproductive success of males but not females of a nest-building stream fish. Males increased access to females and ultimately number of offspring by occupying larger and more nests, which are proxies of reproductive effort. In females, body size was more important than behavior in determining reproductive success, and behavior explained much less of variation in reproductive success. Diverse and complex reproductive patterns of males may explain why behavior outweighed body size in mediating reproductive success, a hypothesis that warrants further research across species with a gradient of mating systems and behavioral complexities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Asher M, Lippmann T, Epplen JT, Karus C, Trillmich F, Sachser N (2008) Large males dominate: ecology, social organization, and mating system of wild cavies, the ancestors of the guinea pig. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0580-x
Barber I (2013) The evolutionary ecology of nest construction: insight from recent fish studies. Avian Biol Res 6:83–98. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815513X13609538379947
Barneche DR, Robertson DR, White CR, Marshall DJ (2018) Fish reproductive-energy output increases disproportionately with body size. Science 360:642–645. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao6868
Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1948.21
Bose APH, Cogliati KM, Luymes N, Bass AH, Marchaterre MA, Sisneros JA, Bolker BM, Balshine S (2018) Phenotypic traits and resource quality as factors affecting male reproductive success in a toadfish. Behav Ecol 29:496–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary002
Brooks R, Couldridge V (1999) Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am Nat 154:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1086/303219
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Cary JB, Holbrook JL, Reed ME, Austin TB, Steffensen MS, Kim S, Pregler KC, Kanno Y (2017) Survival of upper piedmont stream fishes implanted with 8-mm passive integrated transponder tags. Trans Am Fish Soc 146:1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2017.1370015
Cashner MF, Bart HL (2010) Reproductive ecology of nest associates: use of RFLPs to identify cyprinid eggs. Copeia 2010:554–557. https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-09-191
Copp G (1989) Electrofishing for fish larvae and 0+ juveniles: equipment modifications for increased efficiency with short fishes. Aquac Res 20:453–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1989.tb00372.x
Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ Complex Syst 1695
Cushman EL, Kanapeckas Métris KL, Kanno Y, Pregler KC, Peoples BK, Darden TL (2020) Optimization of a suite of microsatellite markers for Nocomis leptocephalus (bluehead chub) and genetic characterization of two populations in South Carolina. Southeast Nat 19:192–204. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.019.0202
Development Core Team R (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org
Díaz-Muñoz SL, DuVal EH, Krakauer AH, Lacey EA (2014) Cooperating to compete: altruism, sexual selection and causes of male reproductive cooperation. Anim Behav 88:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.11.008
Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.327542
Forstmeier W (2002) Benefits of early arrival at breeding grounds vary between males. J Anim Ecol 71:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00569.x
Friedl TWP, Klump GM (2000) Nest and mate choice in the red bishop (Euplectes orix): female settlement rules. Behav Ecol 11:378–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.4.378
Ginsberg JR, Huck UW (1989) Sperm competition in mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 4:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90152-3
Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0
Jackman S (2020) pscl: classes and methods for R developed in the political science computational laboratory. United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney https://github.com/atahk/pscl/
Järvi T (1990) The effects of male dominance, secondary sexual characteristics and female mate choice on the mating success of male Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Ethology 84:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00789.x
Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1994) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda
Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00015.x
Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x
Jones AG, Arguello JR, Arnold SJ (2002) Validation of Bateman’s principles: a genetic study of mating patterns and sexual selection in the rough-skinned newts. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2533–2539. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2177
Kim S, Kanno Y (2020) Spawning periodicity and synchrony of bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) and a nest associate, yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), across local stream. Ecol Freshw Fish 29:299–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12515
Kim S, Peoples BK, Kanno Y (2020) Diverse reproductive patterns of Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) and their relationships with nest size and interactions with an associate, Yellowfin Shiner (Notropis lutipinnis). Environ Biol Fish 103:783–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-020-00980-x
Lanchner EA (1952) Studies of the biology of the cyprinid fishes of the chub genus Nocomis of northeastern United States. Am Midl Nat 120:433–466. https://doi.org/10.2307/2422260
Lehtonen TK, Lindström L (2009) Females decide whether size matters: plastic mate preferences tuned to the intensity of male–male competition. Behav Ecol 20:95–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn134
Lehtonen TK, Rintakoski S, Lindström L (2007) Mate preference for multiple cues: interplay between male and nest size in the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Behav Ecol 18:696–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm032
Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM, Lindström K (2010) Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biol Lett 6:21–23. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0558
Leiser JK, Gagliardi-Seeley JL, Wisenden BD, Itzkowitz M (2015) Mating patterns of female Leon Springs pupfish Cyprinodon bovinus. J Fish Biol 87:604–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12738
Leu ST, Bashford J, Kappeler PM, Bull CM (2010) Association networks reveal social organization in the sleepy lizard. Anim Behav 79:217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.002
Marcy BC Jr, Fletcher DE, Martin FD, Paller MH, Reichert MJM (2005) Fishes of the Middle Savannah River Basin: with emphasis on the Savannah River site. University of Georgia Press, Athens
Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x
Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.1-0, https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg.
McDonald GC, Pizzari T (2016) Why patterns of assortative mating are key to study sexual selection and how to measure them. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-2041-7
McDonald DB, Potts WK (1994) Cooperative display and relatedness among males in a lek-mating bird. Science 266:1030–1032. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7973654
Nafus MG, Todd BD, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD (2015) Consequences of maternal effects on offspring size, growth and survival in the desert tortoise. J Zool 297:108–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12250
Newey S, Allison P, Thirgood SJ, Smith AA, Graham IM (2009) Using PIT-tag technology to target supplementary feeding studies. Wildl Biol 15:405–411. https://doi.org/10.2981/08-083
O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41:673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Oliveira RF, Miranda JA, Carvalho N, Gonçalves EJ, Grober MS, Santos R (2000) Male mating success in the Azorean rock-pool blenny: the effects of body size, male behaviour and nest characteristics. J Fish Biol 57:1416–1428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02221.x
Peoples BK, Floyd SP (2017) Partner swapping and cheating: why do different minnow species spawn together? Front Ecol Environ 15:275–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1499
Peoples BK, Frimpong EA (2016) Biotic interactions and habitat drive positive co-occurrence between facilitating and beneficiary stream fishes. J Biogeogr 43:923–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12699
Rehmeier R, Kaufman G, Kaufman D (2006) An automatic activity monitoring system for small mammals under natural conditions. J Mammal 87:628–634. https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-220R2.1
Reynolds JD (1996) Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol Evol 11:68–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81045-7
Sabaj MH, Maurikis EG, Woolcott WS (2000) Spawning behaviors in the bluehead chub, Nocomis leptocephalus, river chub, Nocomis micropogon and central stoneroller, Campostoma anomalum. Am Midl Nat 144:187–201. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2000)144[0187:SBITBC]2.0.CO;2
Sabol AC, Solomon NG, Dantzer B (2018) How to study socially monogamous behavior in secretive animals? Using social network analyses and automated tracking systems to study the social behavior of prairie voles. Front Ecol Evol 6:178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00178
Sabol AC, Lambert CT, Keane B, Solomon NG, Dantzer B (2020) How does individual variation in sociality influence fitness in prairie voles? Anim Behav 163:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.02.009
Serbezov D, Bernatchez L, Olsen EM, Vøllestad LA (2010) Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Mol Ecol 19:3193–3205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04744.x
Silknetter S, Kanno Y, Kanapeckas Métris KL, Cushman EL, Darden TL, Peoples BK (2019) Mutualism or parasitism: partner abundance affects host fitness in a fish reproductive interaction. Freshw Biol 64:174–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13205
Soler JJ, Cuervo JJ, Møller AP, DeLope F (1998) Nest building is a sexually selected behaviour in the barn swallow. Anim Behav 56:1435–1442. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0938
Taborsky M (2009) Reproductive skew in cooperative fish groups: virtue and limitations of alternative modeling approaches. In: Hager R, Jones C (eds) Reproductive skew in vertebrates: proximate and ultimate causes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511641954.012
Trainer JM, McDonald DB (1995) Singing performance, frequency matching and courtship success of long-tailed manakins (Chiroxiphia linearis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177404
Trippel EA, Kjesbu OS, Solemdal P (1997) Effects of adult age and size structure on reproductive output in marine fishes. In: Chambers RC, Trippel EA (eds) Early life history and recruitment in fish populations. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 31–62
Wallin JE (1989) Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) nests used by yellowfin shiners (Notropis lutipinnis). Copeia 4:1077–1080. https://doi.org/10.2307/1446006
Wallin JE (1992) The symbiotic nest association of yellowfin shiners, Notropis lutipinnis, and bluehead chubs, Nocomis leptocephalus. Environ Biol Fish 33:287–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005872
Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02533-8
Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordán F (2008) Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Anim Behav 75:333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.020
Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.009
Ziv EB, Ilany A, Demartsev V, Barocas A, Geffen E, Koren L (2016) Individual, social, and sexual niche traits affect copulation success in a polygynandrous mating system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:901–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2112-4
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Brandon Peoples, Sam Silknetter, William Hobbie, and Dakota Jackson for their field and laboratory assistance. We thank Lisa Angeloni, Kevin Bestgen, Dana Winkelman, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that improved the manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported financially by the Creative Inquiry program for undergraduate research and the College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences at Clemson University, and the Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SK and YK conceived the study. SK collected the field data and conducted the statistical analysis. KCP and ELC conducted the laboratory genetic analysis. TLD provided oversight on the collection of genetic data and contributed guidance on the incorporation of genetic data into overall project analyses. YK wrote the manuscript with significant input from SK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the use of animals were followed. The fieldwork was conducted in accordance with procedures approved by the Clemson University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC Protocol Number 2014-047 and 2017-039).
Additional information
Communicated by K. Lindström
Open access
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 490 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, S., Pregler, K.C., Cushman, E.L. et al. Behavior outweighs body size in mediating male reproductive success in a nest-building fish, bluehead chub. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 74, 148 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02933-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02933-x