Marine Biology

, Volume 148, Issue 1, pp 189–196 | Cite as

Do microsporidian parasites affect courtship in two-spotted gobies?

  • Christophe PélabonEmail author
  • Åsa A. Borg
  • Jens Bjelvenmark
  • Iain Barber
  • Elisabet Forsgren
  • Trond Amundsen
Research Article


Courtship and body condition of male two-spotted gobies (Gobiusculus flavescens) harbouring naturally acquired microsporidian infections were compared with those of microsporidian-free males under standardized conditions in the lab. Although parasite infection had no apparent effect on individual condition, it significantly affected male courtship intensity. This effect, however, was affected by the intensity of the female courtship. Our study is one of the first to demonstrate a sub-lethal behavioural effect of a microsporidian parasite that could negatively affect the reproductive success of infected individuals. Our results also suggest that secondary sexual traits like courtship may be more sensitive to moderately detrimental effects of parasite infection than classical condition indices.


Male Courtship Courtship Display Hepatosomatic Index Stimulus Female Secondary Sexual Trait 
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.



We thank Katja Norén for help during field work, Nigel G. Yoccoz and Ivar Herfindal for discussion on statistical issues, and Angela Russell for help in identifying the parasite. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This study was carried out according to the legislation on animal rights of Sweden and following the research application to the Swedish ethical committee (ref # 51/99). The study was financially supported by the MARE program of the Research Council of Norway, the EU Transnational Access to Research Infrastructures programme, the Swedish Natural Sciences Research Council, the Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf’s anniversary fund, the Norwegian Academy of Science and the UK Natural Environment Research Council.


  1. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13155–13160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2003) Male preference for colourful females affected by male size in a marine fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnott SA, Barber I, Huntingford FA (2000) Parasite-associated growth enhancement in a fish-cestode system. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber I, Hoare D, Krause J (2000) Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: a review and evolutionary perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 10:131–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjelvenmark J, Forsgren E (2003) Effects of mate attraction and male–male competition on parental care in a goby. Behaviour 140:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgia G, Egeth M, Uy JA, Patricelli GL (2004) Juvenile infection and male display: testing the bright male hypothesis across individual life histories. Behav Ecol 15:722–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brønseth T, Folstad I (1997) The effect of parasites on courtship dance in threespine sticklebacks: more than meets the eye? Can J Zool 75:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bush AO, Fernández JC, Esch GW, Seed JR (2001) Parasitism: the diversity and ecology of animal parasites. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Candolin U (2000) Increased signalling effort when survival prospects decrease: male–male competition ensures honesty. Anim Behav 60:417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chellappa S, Huntingford FA, Strang RHC, Thompson RY (1995) Condition factor and hepatosomatic index as estimates of energy status in male three-spined stickleback. J Fish Biol 47:775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugatkin LA, Fitzgerald GJ, Lavoie J (1994) Juvenile three-spined sticklebacks avoid parasitized conspecifics. Environ Biol Fishes 39:215–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn AM, Smith JE (2001) Micropsoridian life cycles and diversity: the relationship between virulence and transmission. Microb Infect 3:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Figueras A, Novoa B, Santarem M, Martinez E, Alvarez JM, Toranzo AE, Dykova I (1992) Tetramicra brevifilum, a potential threat to farmed turbot Scophtalmus maximus. Dis Aquat Org 14:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbes MRL (1993) Parasitism and host reproductive effort. Oikos 67:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forsgren E (1997) Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Anim Behav 53:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsgren E, Amundsen T, Borg AA, Bjelvenmark J (2004) Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429:551–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon JCD (1983) Some notes on small kelp forest fish collected from Saccorhiza polyschides bulbs on the Isle of Cumbrae Scotland. Ophelia 22:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Houde AE, Torio AJ (1992) Effect of parasitic infection on male color pattern and female choice in guppies. Behav Ecol 3:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurd H (2001) Host fecundity reduction: a strategy for damage limitation? Trends Parasitol 17:363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy CEJ, Endler JA, Poynton SL, McMinn H (1987) Parasite load predicts mate choice in guppies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kotiaho JS (2002) Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetles. Behav Ecol 13:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lom J, Dyková I (1992) Protozoan parasites of fishes, vol 26. Dev Aquacult Fish, Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Lom J, Nilsen F (2003) Fish microsporidia: fine structure diversity and phylogeny. Int J Parasitol 33:107–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopez S (1999) Parasitized female guppies do not prefer showy males. Anim Behav 57:1129–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcogliese DJ, Dumont P, Gendron AD, Mailhot Y, Bergeron E, McLaughlin JD (2001) Spatial and temporal variation in abundance of Diplostomumspp. in walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and white suckers (Castostomus commersoni) from the St. Lawrence River. Can J Zool 79:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews JL, Brown AMV, Larison K, Bishop-Stewart JK, Rogers P, Kent ML (2001) Pseudoloma neurophilia n.g. sp., a new microsporidium from the central nervous system of the zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Eukaryot Microbiol 48:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milinski M (1990) Parasites and host decision-making. In: Barnard CJ, Behnke JM (eds) Parasitism and Host Behaviour. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 95–116Google Scholar
  31. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller PJ (1986) Gobiidae. In: Whitehaed PJP, Bauchot ML, Hureau JC, Nielsen J, Tortonese E (eds) Fishes of North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, vol III. Bungay UNESCO, pp 1019–1085Google Scholar
  33. Minchella DJ, Scott ME (1991) Parasitism: a cryptic determinant of animal community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 6:250–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pélabon C, Borg ÅA, Bjelvenmark J, Forsgren E, Barber I, Amundsen T (2003) Do male two-spotted gobies prefer large and fecund females? Behav Ecol 14:787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen CW (1995) Male mating success and female choice in permanently territorial damselfishes. Bull Mar Sci 57:690–704Google Scholar
  36. Polak M, Starmer WT (1998) Parasite-induced risk of mortality elevates reproductive effort in male Drosophila. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2197–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poulin R (1994) Mate choice decisions by parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proc R Soc Lond B 256:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poulin R (1999) The functional importance of parasites in animal communities: many roles at many levels? Int J Parasitol 29:903–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poulin R, Vickery WL (1996) Parasite mediated sexual selection: just how choosy are parasitized females? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reynolds JD (1993) Should attractive individuals court more? Theory and a test. Am Nat 141:914–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenqvist G, Johansson K (1995) Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim Behav 49:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Santos MJ, Eiras JC (1995) A seasonal study of the parasitization of Lipophrys pholis (Pisces: blenniidae) by Heliocometra fasciata (Digenea: Opecoelidae) and Lecithochirium furcolabiatum (Digenea: Hemiuridae) in Portugal. Aquaculture 132:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skolbekken R, Utne-Palm AC (2001) Parental investment of male two-spotted goby, Gobiusculus flavescens (Fabricius). J Exp Mar Biol 261:137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swensson RO (1997) Sex-role reversal in the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. Environ Biol Fish 50:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Takahashi D (2000) Conventional sex roles in an amphidromous Rhinogobius goby in which females exhibit nuptial coloration. Ichthyol Res 47:303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson CW, Hillgarth N, Leu M, McClure HE (1997) High parasite load in house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) is correlated with reduced expression of a sexually selected trait. Am Nat 149:270–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S-plus. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction and a refinement of Lack’s principle. Am Nat 100:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zuk M, Kim T, Robinson SI, Johnsen TS (1998) Parasites influence social rank and morphology, but not mate choice, in female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Anim Behav 56:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Pélabon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Åsa A. Borg
    • 1
  • Jens Bjelvenmark
    • 2
  • Iain Barber
    • 3
  • Elisabet Forsgren
    • 1
  • Trond Amundsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Marine EcologyGöteborg UniversityFiskebäckskilSweden
  3. 3.Institute of Biological SciencesUniversity of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations