| Literature DB >> 20932273 |
Sebastian A Baldauf1, Theo C M Bakker, Fabian Herder, Harald Kullmann, Timo Thünken.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies addressing the adaptive significance of female ornamentation have gained ground recently. However, the expression of female ornaments in relation to body size, known as trait allometry, still remains unexplored. Here, we investigated the allometry of a conspicuous female ornament in Pelvicachromis taeniatus, a biparental cichlid that shows mutual mate choice and ornamentation. Females feature an eye-catching pelvic fin greatly differing from that of males.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20932273 PMCID: PMC2958921 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Sample of an X-ray image. Example of an X-Ray image of a female P. taeniatus. One of the paired pelvic fins was dissected in order to avoid errors in measurements by overlap in X-Rays.
Figure 2Differences between allometric slopes of fins. Pairwise comparisons of the allometric slopes between the pelvic fin (crosses, solid lines) and other fins (dots, dotted lines): a) anal fin, b) pectoral fin, c) dorsal fin, d) caudal fin.
Allometric slope of fins
| Trait | slope | S.E. | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pelvic fin | 0.9297 | 0.1022 | -0.69 | 0.49 |
| caudal fin | 0.829 | 0.1123 | -1.52 | 0.13 |
| anal fin | 0.736 | 0.07816 | -3.38 | |
| pectoral fin | 0.7361 | 0.0764 | -4.62 | |
| dorsal fin | 0.5012 | 0.108 | -3.45 |
Allometric slope with standard error (S.E.) of 79 female fish and statistical test (test statistic t and probability p) whether the allometric relationship between fin size and standard length deviated from 1. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3Males preferences. Male preferences for female stimuli that presented different sizes of the pelvic fin (100% vs. 50%, 50% vs. 0% and 100% vs. 0% pelvic fin size). The amount of time (means + S.D.) males spent in the association zones in three experimental treatments with the female stimulus that either showed a larger or a smaller pelvic fin size is shown. A linear mixed effect model was fitted (see the text for details). * p < 0.05.
Relationship between fin ray length and fin area
| trait | mean ± SD (mm) | t or S | r | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pelvic fin | 5.95 ± 0.57 | 32485 | 0.6 | |
| anal fin | 6.16 ± 0.47 | 7.77 | 0.66 | |
| caudal fin | 10.13 ± 1.00 | 39564 | 0.52 | |
| dorsal fin | 5.00 ± 0.41 | 45505 | 0.45 | |
| pectoral fin | 10.0 ± 0.75 | 8.48 | 0.69 | |
| body size | 39.07 ± 2.91 | - | - | - |
Mean ± S.D. of fin ray length for various fins and body size (n = 79), the test statistic (t or S), the correlation coefficient (r) and its significance (p) for relationship between fin ray length and fin area. *** p < 0.001.