IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i5p881-890..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Single fathers sacrifice their broods and re-mate quickly in a socially monogamous cichlid

Author

Listed:
  • Holger Zimmermann
  • Kristina M Sefc
  • Aneesh P H Bose

Abstract

When one of two parents disappears in the midst of caring for offspring, the remaining parent is left with several options. They can either (1) desert the brood, (2) continue caring on their own and reject propositions from new potential partners, or (3) continue caring but remain receptive to re-mating opportunities. The presence of a brood may increase re-mating success of single parents, either because brood care is perceived as a signal of partner quality, or because prospective mates perceive the brood as potential energy source. In this field experiment, we used the socially monogamous, biparental cichlid fish Variabilichromis moorii to examine the re-mating strategy of males with or without dependent offspring after the loss of their female partner. Partner vacancies were filled quickly by new females, and these females engaged in high levels of affiliative behavior with the males. The new females engaged in territorial defense, but focused primarily against intruding conspecifics, likely as a means to repel rivals. The males, in turn, took over the majority of territorial defense against intruding heterospecifics. Interestingly, males that still had offspring from their previous partnerships did not show aggression toward their new female partners, even when those females were infanticidal and cannibalizing the males’ current offspring. Overall, our experiment shows that single fathers of a biparental species will re-mate quickly even at the detriment to their current offspring.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Zimmermann & Kristina M Sefc & Aneesh P H Bose, 2023. "Single fathers sacrifice their broods and re-mate quickly in a socially monogamous cichlid," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 881-890.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:5:p:881-890.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arad045
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:5:p:881-890.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.