A Key Ecological Trait Drove the Evolution of Biparental Care and Monogamy in an Amphibian
2010, The American Naturalist
https://doi.org/10.1086/650727Abstract
Linking specific ecological factors to the evolution of parental care pattern and mating system is a difficult task of key importance. We provide evidence from comparative analyses that an ecological factor (breeding pool size) is associated with the evolution of parental care across all frogs. We further show that the most intensive form of parental care (trophic egg feeding) evolved in concert with the use of small pools for tadpole deposition and that egg feeding was associated with the evolution of biparental care. Previous research on two Peruvian poison frogs (Ranitomeya imitator and Ranitomeya variabilis) revealed similar life histories, with the exception of breeding pool size. This key ecological difference led to divergence in parental care patterns and mating systems. We present ecological field experiments that demonstrate that biparental care is essential to tadpole survival in small (but not large) pools. Field observations demonstrate social monogamy in R. imitator, the species that uses small pools. Molecular analyses demonstrate genetic monogamy in R. imitator, the first example of genetic monogamy in an amphibian. In total, this evidence constitutes the most complete documentation to date that a single ecological factor drove the evolution of biparental care and genetic and social monogamy in an animal.
Key takeaways
AI
AI
- Breeding pool size significantly influences the evolution of parental care and mating systems in frogs.
- Biparental care evolved alongside trophic egg feeding in association with small breeding pools.
- Ranitomeya imitator exhibits genetic monogamy, the first documented case in amphibians.
- Field experiments confirm biparental care enhances tadpole survival in smaller pools.
- Comparative analyses across 404 frog species reveal ecological factors driving parental care evolution.
References (49)
- Ah-King, M., C. Kvarnemo, and B. S. Tullberg. 2005. The influence of territoriality and mating system on the evolution of male care: a phylogenetic study on fish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 371-382.
- Arnold, S. J., and D. Duvall. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. American Naturalist 143:317-348.
- Bell, W. J., L. M. Roth, and C. A. Nalepa. 2007. Cockroaches: ecology, behavior, and natural history. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
- Bickford, D. P. 2004. Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behav- ioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55:402-409.
- Bourne, G. R., A. C. Collins, A. M. Holder, and M. L. McCarthy. 2001. Vocal communication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. Journal of Herpetology 35:272-281.
- Brown, J. L., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2008a. Divergence in parental care, habitat selection and larval life history between two species of Peruvian poison frogs: an experimental analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1534-1543.
- Brown, J. L., E. Twomey, V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2008b. Phy- totelm size in relation to parental care and mating strategies in two species of Peruvian poison frogs. Behaviour 145:1139-1165.
- Brown, J. L., M. Choteau, T. Glenn, and K. Summers. 2009a. The development and analysis of twenty-one microsatellite loci for three species of Amazonian poison frogs. Conservation Genetics Resources 1:149-151, doi:10.1007/s12686-009-9036-5.
- Brown, J. L., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2009b. Home range size and location in relation to reproductive resources in poison frogs: a Monte Carlo approach using GIS data. Animal Behaviour 77: 547-554.
- ---. 2009c. Tactical reproductive parasitism via larval cannibalism in Peruvian poison frogs. Biology Letters 5:148-153.
- Burley, N. T., and K. Johnson. 2002. The evolution of avian parental care. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 357:241-250.
- Caldwell, J. P. 1997. Pair bonding in spotted poison frogs. Nature 385:211.
- Caldwell, J. P., and V. R. L. de Oliveira. 1999. Determinants of bi- parental care in the spotted poison frog, Dendrobates vanzolinii (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Copeia 1999:565-575.
- Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1991. The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
- Crump, M. L. 1974. Reproductive strategies in a tropical anuran community. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Mis- cellaneous Publication no. 61.
- Duellman, W. E., and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill, San Francisco.
- Frost, D. R. 2009. Amphibian species of the world: an online ref- erence. Version 5.3. American Museum of Natural History, New York. http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/.
- Frost, D. R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R. H. Bain, A. Haas, C. F. B. Haddad, R. O. De Sa, et al. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History no. 297.
- Gonzalez-Voyer, A., J. L. Fitzpatrick, and N. Kolm. 2008. Sexual selection determines parental care patterns in cichlid fishes. Evo- lution 62:2015-2026.
- Goodnight, K. F., and D. C. Queller. 1999. Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Molecular Ecology 8:1231-1234.
- Grant, T., D. R. Frost, J. P. Caldwell, R. Gagliardo, C. F. B. Haddad, P. J. R. Kok, D. B. Means, B. P. Noonan, W. E. Schargel, and W. C. Wheeler. 2006. Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Amphibia: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History no. 299.
- Gubernick, D. J., and T. Teferi. 2000. Adaptive significance of male parental care in a monogamous mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:147-150.
- Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? Biological Reviews 72:21-64.
- Kleiman, D. G. 1977. Monogamy in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 52:39-69.
- Kokko, H., and M. D. Jennions. 2008. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:919- 948.
- Liebgold, E. B., P. R. Cabe, R. G. Jaeger, and P. L. Leberg. 2006. Multiple paternity in a salamander with socially monogamous behaviour. Molecular Ecology 15:4153-4160.
- Maddison, D. R., and W. P. Maddison. 2003. MacClade 4: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 4.06. Sinauer, Sun- derland, MA. Maddison, W. P. 1990. A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree? Evolution 44:539-557.
- Magnusson, W. E., and J. M. Hero. 1991. Predation and the evolution of complex oviposition behavior in Amazon rainforest frogs. Oec- ologia (Berlin) 86:310-318.
- Matthews, L. M. 2003. Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females. Behavioral Ecology 14:63-67.
- Maynard Smith, J. 1977. Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour 25:1-9.
- McDiarmid, R. W. 1978. Evolution of parental care in frogs. Pages 127-147 in G. M. Burghardt and M. Bekoff, eds. The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland STPM, New York.
- Pagel, M. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 255:37-45.
- Reichard, U. H., and C. Boesch. 2003. Monogamy: mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans and other mammals. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Santos, J. C., L. A. Coloma, K. Summers, J. P. Caldwell, R. Ree, and D. C. Cannatella. 2009. Amazonian amphibian diversity is pri- marily derived from Late Miocene Andean lineages. PLoS Biology 7:e56. Summers, K. 1989. Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the green poison dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. Animal Behaviour 37:797-805.
- ---. 1992a. Dart-poison frogs and the control of sexual selection. Ethology 91:89-107.
- ---. 1992b. Mating strategies in two species of dart-poison frog: a comparative study. Animal Behaviour 43:907-919.
- Summers, K., and D. J. Earn. 1999. The cost of polygyny and the evolution of female care in poison frogs. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 66:515-538.
- Summers, K., and C. S. McKeon. 2004. The evolutionary ecology of phytotelmata use in poison frogs. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 193:55-73.
- Summers, K., C. S. McKeon, and H. Heying. 2006. The evolution of parental care and egg size: a comparative analysis in frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:687- 692. Summers, K., C. S. McKeon, H. Heying, J. Hall, and W. Patrick. 2007. Social and environmental influences on egg size evolution in frogs. Journal of Zoology (London) 271:225-232.
- Touchon, J. C., and K. M. Warkentin. 2008. Reproductive mode plasticity: aquatic and terrestrial oviposition in a treefrog. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 7495-7499.
- Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Pages 136-179 in B. Campbell, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.
- Wells, K. 2007. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Wesolowski, T. 2004. The origin of parental care in birds. Behavioral Ecology 15:520-523.
- Westneat, D. F., and P. W. Sherman. 1993. Parentage and the evo- lution of parental behavior. Behavioral Ecology 4:66-77.
- Westneat, D. F., and I. R. K. Stuart. 2003. Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates and conflict. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:365-396.
- Weygoldt, P. 1987. Evolution of parental care in dart poison frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae). Zeitschrift fu ¨r Zoologisch, Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 25:51-67.
- Wilson, E. O. 1971. Insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cam- bridge, MA.
- Wittenberger, J. F., and R. L. Tilson. 1980. The evolution of mo- nogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evo- lution, and Systematics 11:197-232.
- Left, Ranitomeya imitator, a species of poison frog that uses tiny pools for tadpole deposition and exhibits biparental care (where the female feeds tadpoles food eggs) and monogamy. Right, Ranitomeya variabilis, a species of poison frog that uses larger pools for tadpole deposition and does not exhibit biparental care or monogamy. Photographs by Jason L. Brown.
FAQs
AI
What ecological factors drive the evolution of biparental care in frogs?
The study finds that the use of small breeding pools increases the harshness of the environment, which likely drives the evolution of biparental care to enhance offspring survival.
How does breeding pool size influence parental care strategies in anurans?
Research on Ranitomeya imitator and Ranitomeya variabilis reveals that smaller pools lead to biparental care, while larger pools support uniparental male care.
What evidence supports the correlation between biparental care and genetic monogamy?
Genetic analyses indicate that 11 out of 12 families of Ranitomeya imitator exhibit both genetic and social monogamy, suggesting a link to biparental care.
How were experimental methods utilized to study tadpole growth and parental care?
Reciprocal transplant experiments demonstrated that tadpoles in small pools, lacking parental trophic eggs, experienced significantly slower growth and higher mortality.
What are the implications of the findings for understanding amphibian mating systems?
This research highlights that ecological shifts impacting breeding strategies may lead to significant evolutionary transitions in mating systems across various frog lineages.
victor morales