4.5 Article

Nonrandom brood mixing suggests adoption in a colonial cichlid

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 540-546

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars195

关键词

adoption; brood farming out; brood mixing; cichlid; microsatellite analysis; parental care; parental investment

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P17468, P20401]
  2. Swiss Academy of Science
  3. Austrian Academy of Science
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 20401] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20401] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parental care of unrelated offspring is widespread but not well understood. We used 11 polymorphic microsatellite loci to investigate the relatedness of fry and parentally caring adults in a 118-nest colony of the socially and genetically monogamous cichlid fish Neolamprologus caudopunctatus in Lake Tanganyika. There was a high proportion of brood mixing, with 59% of 32 broods containing fry unrelated to both parents and 18% of all 291 sampled fry being unrelated to the breeding pair. There was no evidence of kin selection for adoption because the genetic and foster parents were not more related than expected by chance. Parentage was assigned to 12 adopted fry from 10 broods. Distances traversed by fry varied markedly, from less than 1 to over 40 m. The larger distances suggest that at least some brood mixing was instigated by parents transporting portions of their broods in their mouths, as occurs in some cichlids. Further evidence of nonrandom brood mixing was that foreign fry did not differ in size from their foster siblings within broods, even though they were significantly larger than fry produced by the tending pairs within the colony. These findings suggest that at least some foreign fry had dispersed nonrandomly and were adopted by their foster parents. Enlarged broods are known to provide reduced per capita predation, making it potentially adaptive for breeders to adopt unrelated offspring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据