Data from: Sympatry and parapatry among rocky reef cichlids of Lake Victoria explained by female mating preferences
Data files
Jan 21, 2024 version files 1.08 MB
-
README_Table_S1.txt
-
README_Table_S2.txt
-
README_Table_S3.txt
-
README.md
-
Supplement_5Pun__figure_s1-2.pdf
-
Svensson_5Pun_Table_S1.csv
-
Svensson_5Pun_Table_S2.csv
-
Svensson_5Pun_Table_S3.csv
Abstract
Work on the Lake Victoria cichlids Pundamilia nyererei (red dorsum males, deeper water), Pundamilia pundamilia (blue males, shallower water) and related species pairs has provided insights into processes of speciation. Here, we investigate female mating behaviour of five Pundamilia species and four of their F1-hybrids through mate choice trials and paternity testing. We discuss the results in the context of the geography of speciation and coexistence. Complete assortative mating was observed among all sympatric species. Parapatric species with similar depth habitat distributions interbred whereas other parapatric and allopatric species showed complete assortative mating. F1-hybrids mated exclusively with species accepted by females of the parental species. Although consistent with reinforcement in sympatry, a closer look at our results suggests otherwise and it is more likely that pre-existing female preferences influence which taxa can co-exist in sympatry. Regardless of the mechanism, mating preferences may influence species distribution in potentially hybridizing taxa, such as in the adaptive radiations of cichlid fish. We suggest that this at least partly explains why some species fail to establish breeding populations in locations where they are occasionally recorded. Our result support the notion that mating preferences of potentially cross-breeding species ought to be included in coexistence theory.
README: Data from: Sympatry and parapatry among rocky reef cichlids of Lake Victoria explained by female mating preferences
Authors: Ola Svensson, Katie Woodhouse, Alan Smith, Ole Seehausen, George F. Turner
Contact details: Ola Svensson, University of Bors, ola.svensson@hb.se
Title of study: Sympatry and parapatry among rocky reef cichlids of Lake Victoria explained by female mating preferences
Brief summary: Here, we investigate female mating behaviour of five Pundamilia species and four of their F1-hybrids through mate choice trials and paternity testing. We discuss the results in the context of the geography of speciation and coexistence.
Responsible for collecting data: Ola Svensson
Description of the Data and file structure
Supplementary tables S1-S3
The supplementary tables contain all microsatellite paternity analyses of the wild type females and F1-females used in the present study.
Table S1 contains a summary of the spawning decisions of all females, including their IDs. Table S2 includes the microsatellite genotype of all males used in the experiment as well as in which experimental round they were used. The experimental rounds were approximately four weeks each. The experiment was carried out over two years, from August 2006 to July 2008. Table S3 includes microsatellite raw data of the offspring of the females, as well as the paternity analyses. The first row with the ID shows the genotype of the females whereas the following rows with the same ID show the IDs of the offspring. Brood No is the ID of the brood and the rows below, until the next Brood number, are siblings from the same brood. When available, number of eggs in the brood, the size of the brooding female, the date when the female was stripped of eggs/fry and the number and starting date of the experimental round are given on the same row as Brood No. A slash between potential fathers of the same species show that it was not possible to dettermine parentage between the two conspecific males. Fathers within brackets show that the conspecific male is a potential father. However, it is a less likely father e.g. because short time in the experimental setup. Note that all offspring were 100% assigned to one species only. Empty cells are marked with n/a.
Species included in the present study:
P. azurea, Ruti Island
P. igneopinnis, Igombe Island
P. nyererei, Makobe Island
P. pundamilia, Makobe Island
P. sp. red head, Zue Island
Table S1. Spawning decisions of wild type females and F1 hybrid females
Table S2. Microsatellite genotypes and experimental round of males
Table S3. Microsatellite genotypes and paternity analyses
Supplementary figures S1-S2
Supplemental figure S2a. ‘melanic’ v. ‘red dorsum’ and ‘blue’ F1-crosses. In the P. azurea x P. nyererei cross (both directions) approximately three fourth were ‘red dorsum’ morphs and one fourth of the crosses were ‘blue’ morphs. The same was true for the P. igneopinnis x P. nyererei cross (both directions). In the latter we followed 26 randomly picked males to old age and the ratio did not change (20 ‘red dorsum’ v. 6 ‘blue’). One male and one female produced the cross except where noted (mother 1, mother 2). We do not have a photo of the P. igneopinnis x P. nyererei, ‘blue’ morph. Photos: Katie Woodhouse.
Supplemental figure S2a. ‘melanic’ v. ‘red dorsum’ and ‘blue’ F1-crosses. In the P. azurea x P. nyererei cross (both directions) approximately three fourth were ‘red dorsum’ morphs and one fourth of the crosses were ‘blue’ morphs. The same was true for the P. igneopinnis x P. nyererei cross (both directions). In the latter we followed 26 randomly picked males to old age and the ratio did not change (20 ‘red dorsum’ v. 6 ‘blue’). One male and one female produced the cross except where noted (mother 1, mother 2). We do not have a photo of the P. igneopinnis x P. nyererei, ‘blue’ morph. Photos: Katie Woodhouse.
Supplemental figure S2b. ‘blue’ v. ‘red chest’ and ‘red dorsum’ F1-crosses. One male and one female produced the cross except where noted (mother 1, mother 2). We do not have photos of the P. pundamilia x P. nyererei and P. sp. ‘red head’ x P. pundamilia crosses. Photos: Katie Woodhouse and Ola Svensson.
Figures S1-2. Experimental set-up and photos of F1 hybrid males
Sharing/access Information
The data is published in Journal of Evolutionary Biology with the same title and authors.
Methods
Experimental setup
A 240 x 80 x 40 cm aquarium was divided by grids into ten male compartments with a flowerpot as a standardized spawning site in each. This ‘partial partition’ design allowed females to move freely whereas the larger males were confined to their compartments (Supporting Information Figure S1). We used standard daylight full light spectrum aquarium T5 fluorescent tubes to enable nuptial colours to be visible for all females. The combination of ten males, two from each species, was changed every second month the first year when most clutches were spawned and thereafter every 3-5 months when we collected the remaining clutches (total number of males used: 9 P. azurea, 10 P. igneopinnis, 8 P. nyererei, 8 P. pundamilia and 8 P. sp. ‘red head’, Electronic supplementary material Table S1-S2). All experimental fish were marked with PIT tags and a clip from the dorsal fin provided a DNA sample. Females were introduced when large enough to be PIT-tagged (size differences depended on age). For the first three months only wild-type fish were present; F1 hybrid females and more wild-type fish were added over the following year. Females were stripped of embryos/juveniles once a month and released back into the experimental tank for a second and third clutch and thereafter removed. Females with eggs were placed in a separate aquarium until the eggs hatched. Larvae/juveniles were euthanized using MS-222 (tricaine methanesulfonate) and stored in 95% ethanol prior to paternity analyses. Electronic supplementary material Table S1 shows when each female spawned i.e. were present in the aquarium. The size of males were similar among species and initially 99-109 mm TL although they grew during the experiment. Female sizes when spawning were 65-97 mm TL and we confirmed for each female that it could pass the grids of the dividers.
Paternity analyses
Where possible, four embryos from each of two (sometimes three) clutches per female were genotyped at two to four microsatellite loci, Ppun5, Ppun7, Pun17 and Ppun21. (Taylor et al., 2003) using the methods for DNA extraction and PCR reactions as in Svensson et al. (2017). The amplified DNA samples were genotyped on a Beckman Coulter CEQ 8000 capillary sequencer. Genotypes were received from the CEQ 8000 Series Genetic Analyses System 8.0.52. Paternities were determined manually by inspection of the allele size estimates, and males that possessed two alleles at a microsatellite locus that were both not present in the offspring were excluded as possible fathers. In all analysed offspring, paternity could be assigned with 100 % certainty to one species only (Electronic supplementary material table S1-S3). If a clutch was confirmed to be fathered by more than one male; each sire was considered to represent one mate choice decision by the female.