Does nest predation pressure influence the energetic cost of nest guarding in a teleost fish?
- 301 Downloads
The energetic costs of providing parental care are widely documented, but rarely do studies consider the role of environmental variation (e.g., predation pressure) in this context. Here, we tested if variation in nest predation pressure influenced the energetic costs of parental care in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), a teleost fish species that provides lengthy paternal care. First, we documented that nest predation pressure varied among the six lakes studied and the relative predation pressure ranking was consistent across a three year period. We used a combination of traditional proximate body composition (PBC) analyses and electromyogram (EMG) telemetry to quantify activity costs of nesting fish across these populations. The traditional approach revealed declines in energy stores across the parental care period but showed no evidence of an increased energetic cost to parents from populations with higher nest predation pressure. Comparing the distribution of EMG data from the two extremes of predation pressure revealed that males from the site of highest predation spent more time at higher EMG levels relative to the parents from the lake of lowest predation pressure. Although not statistically significant, males from the site of highest predation pressure also spent 21–24 % of their time burst swimming when guarding young offspring compared to 10–11 % for males at the site of lowest predation pressure. These differences in overall activity, a large contributor to the energy use of fish, may translate into longer recovery times and decreased future reproductive opportunities.
KeywordsElectromyogram telemetry Kernel density estimates Micropterus dolomieu Parental care Proximate body composition
A special thanks to Grégory Bulté and Caleb T. Hasler for providing early comments on this manuscript and helpful suggestions. For their help in the field and laboratory, the authors would like to thank Elad Ben-Ezra, Michelle Caputo, Alison Colotelo, Laura Chomyshyn, Michael Donaldson, Patricia Halinowski, Kyle Hanson, Karen Murchie, Connie O’Connor, Rana Sunder, Graham Raby, Tara Redpath and Samantha Wilson. We would also like to acknowledge the staff at the Queen’s University Biological station, and in particular, Frank Phelan for facilitating this work. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources kindly provided scientific collection permits for this research. Research activities were supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant to SJC and by an NSERC CGSD to MAG. SJC was also supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program. All research was conducted with approval of the Canadian Council on Animal Care as administered through Carleton University.
- Bowman AW, Azzalini A (1997) Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis: the kernel approach with s-plus illistrations. Oxford Univeristy Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bowman AW, Azzalini A (2010) Package ‘sm’. R Project. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sm/sm.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2011.
- Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Coleman RM, Gross MR, Sargent RC (1985) Parental investment decision rules - a test in bluegill sunfish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:59–66Google Scholar
- Dytham C (2003) Choosing and using statistics a biologist's guide. Blackwell Science, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- Marleau J (2007) Eastern Ontario fishing mapbook. Mussio Ventures Ltd, TorontoGoogle Scholar
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Steinhart GB, Dunlop ES, Ridgway MS, Marschall EA (2008) Should I stay or should I go? Optimal parental care decisions of a nest-guarding fish. Evol Ecol Res 10:351–371Google Scholar
- Townsend DS (1986) The costs of male parental care and its evolution in a neotropical frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:187–195Google Scholar
- Wiegmann DD, Baylis JR, Hoff MH (1997) Male fitness, body size and timing of reproduction in smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui. Ecology 78:111–128Google Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar