Sexual conflict and sexually dimorphic cognition—reviewing their relationship in poeciliid fishes
Sexual conflict, the difference in preferred mating rates between the sexes, often leads to sexually dimorphic morphologies, strategies, and behaviors. We are now beginning to realize that this pervasive evolutionary process has implications for variation in cognition as well. Here, I review the evidence for this in poeciliid fishes with a focus on taxa that exhibit high levels of sexual conflict (Gambusia affinis, G. holbrooki, Poecilia reticulata) as well as taxa that represent a more moderate level of sexual conflict (Xiphophorus nigrensis). Sexually dimorphic behaviors emerge across poeciliids in predictable directions consistent with sexual conflict and associated with sex-specific variation in cognition. For instance, poeciliid females have evolved a suite of behaviors that reduce male harassment, including greater shoaling tendencies and risk sensitivities than males. Meanwhile, cognitive styles and cognitive-behavioral profiles diverge between the sexes in ways that highlight these behavioral differences likely born from conflict. Male and female G. affinis have opposing relationships between exploratory tendencies and learning, and they also exhibit distinct behavioral predictors (sociability, activity, anxiety, and exploratory behaviors) for individual learning performance. Artificial selection studies suggest that increases in sexual conflict lead to a demand in cognitive processes; and neurogenomic studies reveal that specific brain regions and molecular pathways underlying high and low sexual conflict interactions may differ. While the current body of evidence is still nascent in many respects, I will highlight areas of research in which further investigation with poeciliid fishes can provide insight into the intertwined relationship between sexual conflict and cognition.
Rarely does one consider the benefits of conflict. However, when it comes to sexual conflict, one of the potential benefits it may bring is advances in cognition. I use the poeciliid fishes to showcase this idea as they are both a model for sexual conflict and an experimentally tractable system to test for cognitive variation. I review the current evidence across poeciliid fishes that sexual conflict drives behavioral changes, physiological investment in brain size, and neuromolecular responses within the brain. Furthermore, I examine sexually dimorphic relationships between learning performance and behavioral traits. While all the data reported in this review come from poeciliid fishes, the evolutionarily conserved nature of the decision-making network across vertebrate brains suggests the reported patterns may have relevance to a diversity of vertebrates (including humans) that experience high degrees of sexual conflict.
KeywordsSexual selection Courtship Coercion Reproductive strategies Coevolution Brain
The author would like to thank three highly constructive and patient reviewers along with all current and previous undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs who have contributed in poeciliid behavioral, cognitive, and neurogenomic research in my lab over the past decade.
This research was conducted with previous external financial support from NSF (IOS-0813742 and IOS-0843000). This research also received financial support from BEACON.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares she has no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed as outlined in our IACUC protocol (AUP-2016-00246).
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
- Bisazza A (1993) Male competition, female mate choice and sexual size dimorphism in poeciliid fishes. In: Huntingford FA, Torricelli P (eds) The Behavioural ecology of fishes. Harwood Academic publishers, Chur, pp 257–286Google Scholar
- Brennan PLR, Prum RO (2014) Mechanisms and evidence of genital coevolution: the roles of natural selection, mate choice and sexual conflict. In: Rice WR, Gavrilets S (eds) The genetics and biology of sexual conflict. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, pp 385–405Google Scholar
- Clark E, Aronson LR, Gordon M (1954) Mating behavior patterns in two sympatric species of xiphophorin fishes: their inheritance and significance in sexual isolation. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 103:135–226Google Scholar
- Constanz GD (1989) Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF (eds) Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poecliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 33–50Google Scholar
- Croft DP, Morrell LJ, Wade AS, Piyapong C, Ioannou CC, Dyer JRG, Champman BB, Yan W, Krause J (2006) Predation risk as a driving force for sexual segregation: a cross-population comparison. Am Nat 167:867–878Google Scholar
- Farr JA (1989) Sexual selection and secondary sexual differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and the evolution of female choice. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Greven H (2005) Structural and behavioral traits associated with sperm transfer in Poeciliinae. In: Grier HJ, Uribe MC (eds) Viviparous fishes. New Life Publication, Homestead, pp 145–163Google Scholar
- Guillette LM, Reddon AR, Hurd PL, Sturdy CB (2009) Exploration of a novel space is associated with individual differences in learning speed in a novel space is associated with individual differences in learning speed in black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus. Behav Process 82:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Houde AE (1997) Sex, color and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Langerhans BR (2011) Genital evolution. In: Evans JP, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (eds) Ecology and evolution of poeciliid fishes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 228–240Google Scholar
- Magurran AE (2011) Sexual coercion. In: Evans JP, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (eds) Ecology and evolution of poeciliid fishes. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 209–216Google Scholar
- Matta R, Ervin KSJ, Choleris E (2016) The neurobiology of social learning. In: Olmstead MC (ed) Animal cognition: principles, evolution, and development, 1st edn. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 171–200Google Scholar
- Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Parzefall J (1973) Attraction and sexual cycle of poeciliids. In: Schröder JH (ed) Genetics and mutagenesis of fish. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 357–406Google Scholar
- Ryan MJ, Causey BA (1989) Alternative mating behavior in the swordtails Xiphophorus nigrensis and Xiphophorus pygmaeus (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24(6):341–348Google Scholar
- Ryan MJ, Rosenthal GG (2001) Variation and selection in swordtails. In: Dugatkin LA (ed) Model systems in behavioral ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 133–148Google Scholar
- Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine Gruyter, New York, pp 136–179Google Scholar