바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Precopulatory Mate Guarding, Mating System and Pairing Parental Care in Hyale rubra (Peracarida; Amphipoda; Gammaridae)

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2008, v.31 no.1, pp.17-21
Kim, Sunghan (Tanhae Marine Resources Institute)
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Mating behaviour of the gammarid amphipod, Hyale rubra, was observed. H. rubra displayed precopulatory mate guarding: males clasped females with their gnathopods during copulation, forming a pair. Males also participated in embryo care during the incubation period. The population was small, and the sex ratio was almost equal. Energy allocation for mating effort and parental effort in the two sexes appear to be almost equal. The mating system was sequentially polygamous (or promiscuous) and there was conspicuous sexual dimorphism in the size of the gnathopod, which was used for mate guarding. However, there appears to be relatively weak sexual competition for mating opportunities despite conspicuous sexual dimorphism. H. rubra did not display territorial competition or external fertilization. Nevertheless, the male provided paternal care. Since H. rubra inhabit tide pools and live on algae, the polygamous mating system of the species can be explained by the polygyny threshold model. The evolution of mate guarding and parental care may have been favored by the species’ low population density and harsh environments, an interpretation consistent with the optimality model.

keywords
Mate guarding, Mating system, Parental care

Reference

1.

Bauer RT. 2004. Remarkable shrimps, adaptations and natural history of the carideans. Animal Natural History series Vol. 7, 282 pp.

2.

Borowsky B. 1991. Patterns of reproduction of some amphipod crustaceans and insights into the nature of their stimuli. In: Crustacean Sexual Biology (Bauer R, Martin J, ed). Columbia University Press, New York, pp 33-49.

3.

Crook JH. 1965. The adaptive significance of avian social organization.In: Social organization of animal communities (Ellis PE, ed).). Symp Zool Soc London, Vol 14. Zoological Society of London,pp 181-218.

4.

Dick JTA, Faloon SE, Elwood RW. 1998. Active brood care in an amphipod: influences of embryonic development, temperature and oxygen. Ani Beh 56: 663-672.

5.

Dick JTA, MacNeil C, Anderson R. 1999. The distribution of Crangonyx pseudogracilis Bousfield, 1958 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in Northern Ireland, with notes on its ecology and behaviour. Irish Naturalists' J 26: 236-240.

6.

Dick JTA, Bailey RJE, Elwood RW. 2002. Maternal care in the rockpool amphipod Apherusa jurinei: developmental and environmental cues. Ani Beh 63: 707-713.

7.

Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.

8.

Ganning B. 1971. Studies on chemical, physical and biological conditions in Swedish rockpool ecosystems. Ophelia 9: 51~105.

9.

Krebs JR, Davies NB. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell science, 420 pp.

10.

Maynard smith J. 1977. Parental investment- a prospective analysis. Ani Beh 25: 1-9.

11.

Morris S, Taylor AC. 1983. Diurnal and seasonal variation in physicochemical conditions within intertidal rockpools. Estu Coast Biol Ecol 17: 339-355.

12.

Pianka ER. 2000. Evolutionary ecology. HarperCollins College Publishers, 512 pp.

13.

Ruppert EE, Barnes RD. 1991. Invertebrates zoology. Saunders college publishing Tiel M. 1998. Population biology of Dyopedos monacanthus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) on estuarine soft-bottoms: importance of extended parental care and pelagic movements. Mar Bio 132: 209-221.

14.

Truchot JP, Duhamel-Jouve A. 1980. Oxygen and carbon dioxide in the marine intertidal environment. Diurnal and tidal changes in rockpools. Resp Physiol 39: 241-254.

15.

Wickler W, Seibt U. 1981. Monogamy in crustacea and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215-234.

Journal of Ecology and Environment