Parental Care Patterns of Fishes
Parental Care Patterns of Fishes
复制标题
鱼类的亲代照顾模式
DOI:
10.1086/283789
复制
发表时间:
1981
影响因子:
2.9
通讯作者:
M. Keenleyside
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
M. Keenleyside
In their recent paper on parental care in fishes Perrone and Zaret (1979) made a number of generalizations that are not fully supported by available evidence. Given the rapid development of parental investment theory since the important paper by Trivers (1972), and the recent interest in fish parental behavior in particular (e.g., Ridley 1978; Blumer 1979; Keenleyside 1979), I believe it is useful to point out some ways in which these inaccuracies influence the generality of the thesis presented by Perrone and Zaret. The page numbers in parentheses below refer to pages in their paper. 1. "There is usually no uncertainty surrounding paternity in territorial species" (p. 352). The argument is made that male parental investment (PI) should occur only in fishes that breed by external fertilization within a territory guarded by the male, because the resident can exclude rival males and thus be assured of fertilizing all the ova released in his territory. In stressing the importance of the certainty of paternity for the evolution of paternal care of young, the authors have ignored the phenomenon of "fertilization stealing." In some species that have intensive paternal care following spawning in a male-guarded territory, certainty of paternity may be low for some territorial males because of frequent intrusions by other males attempting to steal fertilizations at the moment of oviposition. The best documented evidence comes from centrarchids (Childers and Bennett 1961; Gerald 1970; Keenleyside 1972; Gross 1979) and gasterosteids (Morris 1952; van den Assem 1967; Wootton 1976; Rowland 1979). A good test of the importance of this phenomenon for continued male PI would be to measure the latter in relation to frequency of successful attempts to steal fertilizations. The higher the frequency the more ready the "cuckolded" territorial male should be to desert his brood. Our own efforts to test this point with longear sunfish (where attempted fertilization stealing is common, Keenleyside 1972), have so far been unsuccessful because of the difficulty of identifying the source(s) of sperms responsible for fertilizing the eggs within a single nest. 2. "Few fishes bring food to their fry" (p. 352). In contrast to birds and mammals, the active provision of food for their offspring is rare among fishes. "The only exception to this generalization . . . " is said to occur in some species of Cichlidae, where the fry obtain nutrients by eating mucus from the bodies of their parents. However, this overlooks two other provisioning techniques that are used by some fry-brooding cichlids. In Cichlasoma nigrofasciaturm one parent, usually the female, frequently performs "fin-digging" in soft substrates. She settles to the bottom, vigorously undulates the body and beats the pectoral fins forward, thus stirring up loose materials (Williams 1972; Krischik and Weber 1975). The fry quickly approach her and feed on the suspended particles. Since the parent often does not feed on the moving particles, it seems clear that food is being made more readily available for the young by the adult's stirring movements. Cichlids of the