Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 387–395 | Cite as

Social monogamy in the shrimp Pontonia margarita, a symbiont of Pinctada mazatlanica, off the Pacific coast of Panama

  • J. Antonio Baeza
Research Article

Abstract

A previous study predicted the evolution of monogamy in symbiotic crustaceans inhabiting scarce, relatively small hosts in tropical environments where predation risk away from hosts is high. This prediction was tested in the shrimp Pontonia margarita, which inhabits the pearl oyster Pinctada mazatlanica. A total of 68 oysters were collected from the intertidal and shallow subtidal at two islands (Islas Secas [N 27° 55′, W 82° 03′] and Isla de La Coiba [N 27° 50′, W 97° 03′]) off the eastern tropical Pacific coast on 15 and 17 March 2007, respectively. The population structure, distribution, male-female association pattern, and relative growth of the major claw and pleura of the second abdominal segment of each shrimp retrieved were examined. Shrimps were found as heterosexual pairs in the mantle cavity of hosts more frequently than would be expected by chance alone. Males occurred with females in the same host, independent of the reproductive condition of the female or the stage of development of brooded embryos. This observation, and strong correlations between the host and shrimp body size in both males and females suggest a long-term association between males and females in each host. Sexual dimorphism in body size was minor, with males being just slightly smaller than females. In agreement with predictions for monogamous species, the major claw of males did not display positive allometry, which has been generally reported for polygamous shrimps. In turn, the pleura of the second abdomen presented negative allometry in males but positive allometry in females. All available information suggests that Pontonia margarita has a socially monogamous mating system with males and females forming exclusive pairs in their hosts.

Keywords

Abdominal Segment Pearl Oyster Positive Allometry Monogamous Species Negative Allometry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the support from a Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) Postdoctoral Fellowship and a Smithsonian Marine Station (SMS) Postdoctoral Fellowship. Thanks to R. Collin for inviting me to participate on the research cruise to Islas Secas, Isla de la Coiba, and other islands in the tropical eastern Pacific on the R/V Urraca, STRI, Panama. The comments by Dr. Judy Grassle and three anonymous reviewers substantially improved this manuscript. Thanks to Jennifer Reitz for improving the English of the manuscript.

References

  1. Adams J, Edwards AJ, Emberton H (1985) Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in the obligate coral commensal Trapezia ferruginea Latreille (Decapoda, Xanthidae). Crustaceana 48:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baeza JA (1999) Indicators of monogamy in the commensal crab Pinnixa transversalis (Milne Edwards & Lucas) (Decapoda: Brachyura: Pinnoteridae): population distribution, male–female association and sexual dimorphism (In Spanish). Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr 34:303–313Google Scholar
  3. Baeza JA, Thiel M (2000) Host use pattern and life history of Liopetrolisthes mitra, an associate of the black sea urchin Tetrapygus niger. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 80:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baeza JA, Thiel M (2003) Predicting territorial behavior in symbiotic crabs using host characteristics: a comparative study and proposal of a model. Mar Biol 142:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baeza JA, Thiel M (2007) The mating system of symbiotic crustaceans. A conceptual model based on optimality and ecological constraints. In: Duffy JE, Thiel M (eds) Reproductive and social behavior: crustaceans as model systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 250–267Google Scholar
  6. Baeza JA, Thiel M, Stotz WB (2001) The life history of Allopetrolisthes spinifrons, a crab associate of the sea anemone Phymactis clematis. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 81:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer RT (2004) Remarkable shrimps. Oklahoma University Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrera J, Solano Y (1996) Tamaños y frecuencia de Pontonia margarita (Crustacea: Palaemonidae) asociada a Pinctada mazatlanica (Bivalvia: Pteriidae), Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 44:915–917Google Scholar
  9. Christensen AM, McDermott JJ (1958) Life-history and biology of the oyster crab, Pinnotheres ostreum Say. Biol Bull 114:146–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christy JH (1987) Competitive mating, mate choice and mating associations of brachyuran crabs. Bull Mar Sci 41:177–191Google Scholar
  11. Correa C, Thiel M (2003) Mating systems in caridean shrimp (Decapoda: Caridea) and their evolutionary consequences for sexual dimorphism and reproductive biology. Rev Chil Hist Nat 76:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Courtney LA, Couch JA (1981) Aspects of the host-commensal relationship between a palaemonid shrimp (Pontonia domestica) and the pen shell (Atrina rigida). Northeast Gulf Sci 5:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diesel R (1986) Optimal mate searching strategy in the symbiotic spider crab Inachus phalangium (Decapoda). Ethology 72:311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diesel R (1988) Male–female association in the spider crab Inachus phalangium: the influence of female reproductive stage and size. J Crust Biol 8:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot JM (1983) Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates, 3rd edn. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication no 25, AmblesideGoogle Scholar
  16. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fransen CHJM (2002) Taxonomy, phylogeny, historical biogeography, and historical ecology of the genus Pontonia Latreille (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea: Palaemonidae). Zool Verh Leiden 336:1–433Google Scholar
  18. Grafen A, Ridley M (1983) A model of mate guarding. J Theor Biol 102:549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartnoll RG (1978) The determination of relative growth in crustacean. Crustaceana 34:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartnoll RG (1982) Growth. In: Abele LG (ed) The biology of Crustacea 2. Academic, New York, pp 111–196Google Scholar
  21. Hazlett BA (1975) Ethological analyses of reproductive behavior in marine Crustacea. Pubb Station Zool Napoli 39(Suppl):677–695Google Scholar
  22. Hipeau-Jacquotte R (1972) Etude des crevettes Pontoniinae (Palaemonidae) associées aux mollusques Pinnidae a Tuléar (Madagascar). 2. Alimentation Téthys 3(Suppl):287–295Google Scholar
  23. Hunt J, Bussière LF, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2004) What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol Evol 19:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones JB (1977) Natural history of the pea crab in Wellington harbour, New Zealand. New Zealand J Mar Freshw Res 11:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jormalainen V (1998) Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Q Rev Biol 73:275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knowlton N (1980) Sexual selection and dimorphism in two demes of a symbiotic, pair-bonding snapping shrimp. Evolution 34:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowlton N, Keller BD (1983) A new, sibling species of snapping shrimp associated with the Caribbean sea anemone Bartholomea annulata. Bull Mar Sci 33:353–362Google Scholar
  28. Mathews LM (2002a) Territorial cooperation and social monogamy: factors affecting intersexual interactions in pair-living snapping shrimp. Anim Behav 63:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathews LM (2002b) Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: does population density, sex ratio, or female synchrony affect behavior of male snapping shrimp (Alpheus angulatus)? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathews LM (2003) Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females. Behav Ecol 14:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van der Meeren GI (1994) Sex- and size-dependent mating tactics in a natural population of shore crabs Carcinus maenas (Crustacea: Brachyura). J Anim Ecol 63:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Monteforte M, Cariño M (1992) Exploration and evaluation of natural stocks of pearl oyster Pinctada mazatlanica and Pteria sterna (Bivalvia: Pteriidae): La Paz Bay, South Baja California, México. AMBIO 21:314–320Google Scholar
  33. Omori K, Yanagisawa Y, Hori N (1994) Life history of the caridean shrimp Periclimenes ornatus Bruce associated with a sea-anemone in southwest Japan. J Crust Biol 14:132–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman N, Dunham DW, Govind CK (2002) Size-assortative pairing in the big-clawed snapping shrimp, Alpheus heterochelis. Behaviour 139:1433–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahman N, Dunham DW, Govind CK (2003) Social monogamy in the big-clawed snapping shrimp, Alpheus heterochelis. Ethology 109:457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rahman N, Dunham DW, Govind CK (2004) Mate choice in the big-clawed snapping shrimp, Alpheus heterochelis, Say, 1818. Crustaceana 77:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson DR, Allen GR (2002) Shorefishes of the tropical eastern Pacific: an information system. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, PanamaGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross DM (1983) Symbiotic relations. In: Vernberg SJ, Vernberg WB (eds) The biology of Crustacea 7. Academic, New York, pp 163–212Google Scholar
  41. SAS Institute (2004) SAS/STAT software; version 9.1. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Sevilla ML (1969) Contribución al conocimiento de la madre perla Pinctada mazatlanica (Hanley 1856). Rev Soc Mex Hist Nat 30:360–372Google Scholar
  43. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (1991) Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod. Nature 350:608–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  46. Solano Y, Cabrera J, Palacios J, Cruz R (1997a) Madurez sexual, índice de condición y rendimiento de Pinctada mazatlanica (Pterioida: Pteriidae), Golfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 45:1049–1054Google Scholar
  47. Solano Y, Cabrera J, Cruz R, Palacios J (1997b) Estructura de la población y crecimiento de Pinctada mazatlanica (Pterioida: Pteriidae), Golfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 45:1055–1060Google Scholar
  48. Stauber LA (1945) Pinnotheres ostreum, parasitic on the American oyster, Ostrea (Gryphaea) virginica. Biol Bull 88:269–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thiel M, Baeza JA (2001) Factors affecting the social behaviour of symbiotic Crustacea: a modelling approach. Symbiosis 30:163–190Google Scholar
  50. Thiel M, Zander A, Valdivia N, Baeza JÁ, Rueffler C (2003) Host fidelity of a symbiotic porcellanid crab: the importance of host characteristics. J Zool 261:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vermeij GJ (1983) Intimate associations and coevolution in the sea. In: Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (eds) Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 311–327Google Scholar
  52. Wickler W, Seibt U (1981) Monogamy in Crustacea and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaRepublic of Panama
  2. 2.Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort PierceFort PierceUSA

Personalised recommendations