The evolution of polyandry: Sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volumn 36, Issue , 2005, Pages 125-146

  Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Genetic incompatibility; Intrinsic sire effects; Maternal effects; Multiple mating

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; FITNESS; MATERNAL EFFECT; POLYANDRY; SPERM COMPETITION;

EID: 30344449191     PISSN: 00664162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102403.112501     Document Type: Review

References (129)

1. Aeschlimann PB, Häberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M. 2003. Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54:119-26
2. Arnold SJ, Duvall D. 1994. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 143:317-48
3. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60:145-64
4. Atlan A, Joly D, Capillon C, Montchamp-Moreau C. 2004. Sex-ratio distorter of Drosophila simulans reduces male productivity and sperm competitive ability. J. Evol. Biol. 17:744-51
5. Baker RH, Ashwell RIS, Richards TA, Fowler K, Chapman T, Pomiankowski A. 2001. Effects of multiple mating and male eye span on female reproductive output in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Behav. Ecol. 12:732-39
6. Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithwaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA. 2001. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268:71-76
7. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349-68
8. Birkhead TR, Chaline N, Biggins JD, Burke T, Pizzari T. 2004. Nontransitivity of paternity in birds. Evolution 58:416-20
9. Birkhead TR, Møller AP, eds. 1998. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic
10. Bishop JDD, Jones CS, Noble LR. 1996. Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. II. Investigation of male mating success using RAPD markers. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:401-7
11. Bretman A, Wedell N, Tregenza T. 2004. Molecular evidence of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 271:159-64
12. Brown JL. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8:60-65
13. Byrne PG, Roberts JD. 2000. Does multiple paternity improve fitness of the frog Crinia georgiana? Evolution 54:968-73
14. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B. 2004. Within-clutch variation in offspring sex determined by differences in sire body size: cryptic mate choice in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 17:464-70
15. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L. 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241-44
16. Clark AG, Begun DJ, Prout T. 1999. Female x male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283:217-20
17. Clark AG, Dermitzakis ET, Civetta A. 2000. Nontransitivity of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Evolution 54:1030-35
18. Crnokrak P, Roff DA. 1995. Dominance variance: association with selectin and fitness. Heredity 75:530-40
19. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF. 2000. Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74-76
20. Destephano DB, Brady UE. 1977. Prostaglandin and prostaglandin synthetase in the cricket, Acheta domesticus. J. Insect Physiol. 23:905-11
21. Eady PE, Wilson N, Jackson M. 2000. Copulating with multiple mates enhances female fecundity but not egg-to-adult survival in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Evolution 54:2161-65
22. Eberhard WG. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
23. Edwards RG. 1955. Selective fertilization following the use of sperm mixtures in the mouse. Nature 175:215-23
24. Erickson RP. 1990. Post-meiotic gene expression. Trends Genet. 6:264-69
25. Evans JP, Marshall DJ. 2005. Male-by-female interactions influence fertilization success and mediates the benefits of polyandry in the sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma. Evolution 59:106-12
26. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A. 2003. Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360-63
27. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA. 2002. Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim. Behav. 64:361-67
28. Fisher DO, Double MC, Moore BD. 2005. Number of mates and timing of mating affect offspring growth in the small marsupial, Antichinus agilis. Anim. Behav. In press
29. Fjerdingstad EJ, Keller L. 2004. Relationships between phenotype, mating behavior, and fitness of queens in the ant Lasius niger. Evolution 58:1056-63
30. Froman DP, Pizzari T, Feltmann AJ, Castillo-Juarez H, Birkhead TR. 2002. Sperm mobility: mechanisms of fertilizing efficiency, genetic variation and phenotypic relationship with male status in the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:607-12
31. García-González F, Simmons LW. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J. Evol. Biol. 18:1097-1103
32. Gregory PG, Howard DJ. 1994. A postinsemination barrier to fertilization isolates two closely related ground crickets. Evolution 48:705-10
33. Hooglund JL. 1998. Why do female Gunnison's prairie dogs copulate with more than one male? Anim. Behav. 55:351-59
34. Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Ward PI. 2001. Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11:1-20
35. Howard DJ. 1999. Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:109-32
36. Howard DJ, Gregory PG. 1993. Post-insemination signalling systems and reinforcement. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 340:231-36
37. Hughes WOH, Boomsma JJ. 2004. Genetic diversity and disease resistance in leaf-cutting ant societies. Evolution 58:1251-60
38. Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK. 2005. Polyandry promotes enhanced offspring survival in decorated crickets. Evolution 59:152-59
39. Jennions MD, Hunt J, Graham R, Brooks R. 2004. No evidence for inbreeding avoidance through postcopulatory mechanisms in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evolution 58:2472-77
40. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75:21-64
41. Kamimura Y. 2003. Effects of repeated mating and polyandry on the fecundity, fertility and maternal behaviour of female earwigs, Euborellia plebeja. Anim. Behav. 65:205-14
42. Kaulenas MS, Yenofsky RL, Potswald HE, Burns AL. 1975. Protein synthesis by the Accessory gland of male house cricket, Acheta domesticus. J. Exp. Zool. 193:21-36
43. Keller L, Reeve HK. 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Stud. Behav. 24:291-315
44. Kempenaers B, Congdon B, Boag P, Robertson RJ. 1999. Extrapair paternity and egg hatchability in tree swallows: evidence for the genetic compatibility hypothesis? Behav. Ecol. 10:304-11
45. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broekhoven C, Dhondt AA. 1992. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494-96
46. Konior M, Radwan J, Kolodziejczyk M. 2001. Polyandry increases offspring fecundity in the bulb mite. Evolution 55:1893-96
47. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Hunt J, Tomkins JL. 2003. Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: A quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am. Nat. 161:852-59
48. Kozielska M, Krzeminska A, Radwan J. 2004. Good genes and the maternal effects of polyandry on offspring reproductive success in the bulb mite. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 271:165-70
49. Levitan DR. 2002. The relationship between conspecific fertilization success and reproductive isolation among three congeneric sea urchins. Evolution 56:1599-609
50. Lewis SM, Austad SN. 1990. Sources of intraspecific variation in sperm precedence in red flour beetles. Am. Nat. 135:351-59
51. Mack PD, Hammock BA, Promislow DEL. 2002. Sperm competition ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56:1789-95
52. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T. 1992. Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355:440-41
53. Marshall RC, Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK. 2003. Sexual selection and individual genetic diversity in a songbird. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 270(Suppl. 2):S248-50
54. Matton DP, Nass N, Clarke AE, Newbigin E. 1994. Self-incompatibility - how plants avoid illegitimate offspring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:1992-97
55. Mays HL, Hill GE. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:554-59
56. Merilä J, Sheldon BC. 1999. Genetic architecture of fitness and nonfitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity 83:103-9
57. Metz EC, Palumbi SR. 1996. Positive selection and sequence rearrangements generate extensive polymorphism in the gamete recognition protein bindin. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:397-406
58. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266:85-91
59. Moore PJ, Harris WE, Montrose VT, Levin D, Moore AJ. 2004. Constraints on evolution and postcopulatory sexual selection: Trade-offs among ejaculate characteristics. Evolution 58:1773-80
60. Mousseau TA, Fox CW. 1998. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:403-7
61. Newcomer SD, Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 1999. Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:10236-41
62. Olsson M, Gullberg A, Tegelström H, Madsen T, Shine R. 1994. Can female adders multiple? Nature 369:528
63. Olsson M, Madsen T, Ujvari B, Wapstra E. 2004. Fecundity and MHC affects ejaculation tactics and paternity bias in sand lizards. Evolution 58:906-9
64. Olsson M, Shine R, Gullberg A, Madsen T, Tegelström H. 1996. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585
65. Pai A, Yan G. 2002. Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269:361-68
66. Palumbi SR. 1999. All males are not created equal: fertility differences depend on gamete recognition polymorphisms in sea urchins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:12632-37
67. Parker GA. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45:525-67
68. Parker GA. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, ed. MS Blum, NA Blum, pp. 123-66. London: Academic
69. Parker GA. 1992. Snakes and female sexuality. Nature 355:395-96
70. Parker GA. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: Towards a theory base. See Birkhead & Møller 1998, pp. 3-54
71. Penn DJ. 2002. The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1-21
72. Penn DJ, Damjanovich K, Potts WK. 2002. MHC heterozygosity confers a selective advantage against multiple-strain infections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:11260-64
73. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR. 2002. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol. Rev. 77:183-209
74. Pusey A, Wolf M. 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:201-6
75. Qvarnström A, Price TD. 2001. Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:95-100
76. Radwan J. 1998. Heritability of sperm competition success in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. J. Evol. Biol. 11:321-28
77. Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M. 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300-2
78. Rosenthal R. 1991. Meta-analytical Procedures for Social Research. London: Sage
79. Rowe L. 1994. The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim. Behav. 48:1049-56
80. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:1415-21
81. Rudolfsen G, Figenschou L, Folstad I, Nordeide JT, Søreng E. 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). J. Evol. Biol. 18:172-79
82. Scofield VL, Schlumpberger JM, West LA, Weissman IL. 1982. Protochordate allorecognition is controlled by a MHC-like gene system. Nature 295:499-502
83. Sheldon BC. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402
84. Sheldon BC, Arponen H, Laurila A, Crochet P-A, Merilä J. 2003. Sire coloration influences offspring survival under predation risk in the moorfrog. J. Evol. Biol. 16:1288-95
85. Sheldon BC, Merilä J, Qvarnström A, Gustafsson L, Ellegren H. 1997. Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264:297-302
86. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
87. Simmons LW. 1987. Female choice contributes to offspring fitness in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21:313-21
88. Simmons LW. 1989. Kin recognition and its influence on mating preferences of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim. Behav. 38:68-77
89. Simmons LW. 1991. Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 41:493-501
90. Simmons LW. 2001a. The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 14:585-94
91. Simmons LW. 2001b. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
92. Simmons LW. 2003. The evolution of polyandry: patterns of genotypic variation in female mating frequency, male fertilization success and a test of the sexy-sperm hypothesis. J. Evol. Biol. 16:624-34
93. Simmons LW, Kotiaho JS. 2002. Evolution of ejaculates: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence in sperm competition traits. Evolution 56:1622-31
94. Sivinski J. 1984. Sperm in competition. In Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems, ed. RL Smith, pp. 86-115. London: Academic
95. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Loher W. 1986. Prostaglandins in insect reproduction. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 79:841-53
96. Stanley-Samuelson DW, Peloquin JJ, Loher W. 1986. Egg-laying in response to prostaglandin injections in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Physiol. Entomol. 11:213-19
97. Stockley P. 2003. Female multiple mating behavior, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 270:271-78
98. Stouthamer R, Breeuwer JAJ, Hurst GDD. 1999. Wolbachia pipientis: Microbial manipulator or arthropod reproduction. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 53:71-102
99. Thornhill R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122:765-88
100. Thrall PH, Antonovics J, Dobson AP. 2000. Sexually transmitted diseases in polygynous mating systems: prevalence and impact on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267:1555-63
101. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:323-28
102. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 1998. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726-30
103. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-27
104. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71-73
105. Tregenza T, Wedell N, Hosken DJ, Ward PI. 2003. Maternal effects on offspring depend on female mating pattern and offspring environment in yellow dung flies. Evolution 57:297-304
106. Vacquier VD. 1998. Evolution of gamete recognition proteins. Science 281:1995-98
107. Watson PJ. 1991. Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphila litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav. 41:343-60
108. Wedekind C, Chapuisat M, Macas E, Rülicke T. 1996. Non-random fertilization in mice correlates with the MHC and something else. Heredity 77:400-9
109. Wedekind C, Müller R, Spicher H. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-86
110. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ. 1995. MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 260:245-49
111. Wedekind C, Walker M, Portmann J, Cenni B, Müller R, Binz T. 2004. MHC-linked susceptibility to a bacterial infection, but no MHC-linked cryptic female choice in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 17:11-18
112. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:313-20
113. Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TBH, Milinski M. 2003. Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343
114. Weigensberg I, Carriére Y, Roff DA. 1998. Effects of male genetic contribution and paternal investment to egg and hatchling size in the cricket, Gryllus firmus. J. Evol. Biol. 11:135-46
115. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-30
116. Wiernasz DC, Perroni CL, Cole BJ. 2004. Polyandry and fitness in the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Mol. Ecol. 13:1601-6
117. Wilkinson GS, Fry CL. 2001. Meiotic drive alters sperm competitive ability in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268:2559-64
118. Wilkinson GS, Swallow SJ, Christenson SJ, Madden K. 2003. Phylogeography of sex ratio and multiple mating in stalk-eyed flies from southeast Asia. Genetica 117:37-46
119. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PE, Robertson G. 1997. Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264:1491-95
120. Worden BD, Parker PG. 2002. Polyandry in grain beetles, Tenebrio molitor, leads to greater reproductive success: material or genetic benefits? Behav. Ecol. 12:761-67
121. Wu C-I. 1983. Virility deficiency and the sex-ratio trait in Drosophila pseudoobscura. I. Sperm displacement and sexual selection. Genetics 105:651-62
122. Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, et al. 1976. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J. Exp. Med. 144:1324-35
123. Yasui Y. 1997. A "good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 149:573-84
124. Yasui Y. 1998. The "genetic benefits" of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:246-50
125. Yasui Y. 2001. Female multiple mating as a genetic bet-hedging strategy when mate choice criteria are unreliable. Ecol. Res. 16:605-16
126. Zeh JA. 1997. Polyandry and enhanced reproductive success in the harlequin-beetle-riding pseudoscorpion. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40:111-18
127. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:1711-17
128. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 1997. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Procc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264:69-75
129. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 2001. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav. 61:1051-63