Resource availability and its effects on mother to embryo nutrient transfer in two viviparous fish species

Abstract

Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the adaptive value of matrotrophy, which is the postfertilization maternal provisioning to developing embryos. The Trexler–DeAngelis model proposes that matrotrophy provides fitness advantages when food abundance is high and availability is constant. If food availability is low or unpredictable, prefertilization maternal provisioning (lecithotrophy) should be favored over matrotrophy. In this study, we tested this model in two fish species from the family Poeciliidae, Poeciliopsis gracilis and P. infans, using field and laboratory data. In the field study, we explored the effects of population, season, and food abundance on the degree of matrotrophy. In P. infans, we found evidence that supports this model: In the population where food abundance decreased during the dry season, females reduced the amount of postfertilization provisioning and thus exhibited a more lecithotrophic strategy. In P. gracilis, we observed patterns that were partially consistent with this model: Food abundance decreased during the wet season in three populations of this species, but only in one of these populations, females exhibited less postfertilization nutrient transfer during this season. In the laboratory study, we tested the effects of constant, fluctuating, and low food availability on the relative amounts of pre‐ and postfertilization provisioning of P. infans. Our laboratory results also support the Trexler–DeAngelis model because both low and fluctuating food regimes promoted a more lecithotrophic strategy. Together, our findings indicate that the benefits of matrotrophy are more likely to occur when females have constant access to food sources.

Predator Environment Does Not Predict Life History in the Morphologically Constrained Fish Alfaro cultratus (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae)

“…High-predation sites are triangles; low-predation sites are circles. the specimens, an approach that has been applied widely across life history studies, including in our previous work (Johnson and Belk, 2001;Belk et al, 2011;Brown et al, 2018;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020), thus allowing us to compare findings here with previous work. We collected life history data using methods described in Johnson and Belk (2001).…”

Examination of the Trexler-DeAngelis Model of Maternal Provisioning Reveals That Matrotrophy Is Costly

“…The studies that have tested the Trexler-DeAngelis model of maternal provisioning have yielded mixed results, which may be attributed to different methodologies. Some studies were based on laboratory experiments (Marsh-Matthews and Deaton, 2006;Pires et al, 2007;Banet and Reznick, 2008;Banet et al, 2010;Pollux and Reznick, 2011;Itonaga et al, 2012;Van Dyke et al, 2014;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020), whereas others were conducted under natural conditions Travis, 2008, 2012;Riesch et al, 2013;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020). In controlled experiments, the amount of food and fluctuations in its availability are the only variables at play.…”

“…alvarezi), whereas other species exhibit extensive matrotrophy (e.g., Poecilia parae and Poeciliopsis prolifica), with several species showing varying degrees of the relative amounts of pre-and post-fertilization provisioning (Reznick et al, 2002;Pires et al, 2007Pires et al, , 2010Pollux et al, 2009;Pollux and Reznick, 2011;Torres-Mejia, 2011;Olivera-Tlahuel et al, 2015). In addition, some studies have demonstrated that the degree of matrotrophy (i.e., the amount of postfertilization maternal provisioning) may also vary among different populations of the same species (Reznick et al, 2007;Turcotte et al, 2008;Pires et al, 2010;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020). Due to the large variation in the way poeciliid females provide resources to their embryos, some studies have attempted to understand the potential benefits of matrotrophy over lecithotrophy DeAngelis, 2003, 2010;Pollux et al, 2009Pollux et al, , 2014Saleh-Subaie and Zúñiga-Vega, 2019).…”

“…Several studies have previously tested the Trexler-DeAngelis model under laboratory (Marsh-Matthews and Deaton, 2006;Pires et al, 2007;Banet and Reznick, 2008;Banet et al, 2010;Pollux and Reznick, 2011;Itonaga et al, 2012;Van Dyke et al, 2014;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020) and natural conditions Travis, 2008, 2012;Riesch et al, 2013;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020) obtaining mixed results. Interestingly, most of these studies have been conducted on poeciliid fishes and only three studies have evaluated this model with nonfish taxa, specifically using lizards as model systems (Cadby et al, 2011;Itonaga et al, 2012;Van Dyke et al, 2014).…”

“…Interestingly, most of these studies have been conducted on poeciliid fishes and only three studies have evaluated this model with nonfish taxa, specifically using lizards as model systems (Cadby et al, 2011;Itonaga et al, 2012;Van Dyke et al, 2014). Some authors suggest that the Trexler-DeAngelis model is at least partially supported according to the relatively high levels of matrotrophy and the tendency to decrease the size of oocytes observed in sites with high food availability in both natural and experimental conditions (Pires et al, 2007;Travis, 2008, 2012;Pollux and Reznick, 2011;Itonaga et al, 2012;Riesch et al, 2013;Van Dyke et al, 2014;Molina-Moctezuma et al, 2020). Nonetheless, other authors suggest that the model is not supported because they did not observe a significant decrease in oocyte size in matrotrophic females, nor did they find differences in the level of matrotrophy in experiments where the amount of food was constant or variable (Marsh-Matthews and Deaton, 2006;Banet et al, 2010;Pollux and Reznick, 2011;Riesch et al, 2013).…”