Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2008, Pages

  Thomas, Melissa L ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; INSECT; KIN SELECTION; MALE; MATING SYSTEM; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; RELATIVE; SIBLING RELATION; SPERM COMPETITION; THEORETICAL STUDY; ANIMAL; EJACULATION; GRYLLIDAE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPERMATOZOON;

GRYLLIDAE; GRYLLINAE; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

ANIMALS; EJACULATION; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPERMATOZOA;

EID: 47749114606     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002151     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour (I and II). Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16.
2. Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Griffin AS, West SA (2003) Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science 302: 634-636.
4. Parker GA (2000) Sperm competition games between related males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267: 1027-1032.
5. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects: Princeton University Press.
6. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 313-320.
7. MacDiarmid AB, Butler MJ (1999) Sperm economy and limitation in spiny lobsters. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 14-24.
8. Marconato A, Shapiro DY (1996) Sperm allocation, sperm production and fertilization rates in the bucktooth parrotfish. Animal Behaviour 52: 971-980.
9. Simmons LW, Roberts B (2005) Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science 310: 1119-1119.
10. West SA, Murray MG, Machado CA, Griffin AS, Herre EA (2001) Testing Hamilton's rule with competition between relatives. Nature 409: 510-513.
11. West SA, Pen I, Griffin AS (2002) Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science 296: 72-75.
12. Wiens JD, Reynolds RT, Noon BR (2006) Juvenile movement and natal dispersal of Northern Goshawks in Arizona. Condor 108: 253-269.
13. Simmons LW, Denholm A, Jackson C, Levy E, Madon E (2007) Male crickets adjust ejaculate quality with both risk and intensity of sperm competition. Biology Letters 3: 520-522.
14. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (2007) Male crickets adjust the viability of their sperm in response to female mating status. American Naturalist 170: 190-195.
15. Simmons LW, Beveridge M, Wedell N, Tregenza T (2006) Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Molecular Ecology 15: 3817-3824.
16. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (in press) Cuticular hydrocarbons are heritable in the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Journal of Experimental Biology.
17. Simmons LW, Wernham J, García-González F, Kamien D (2003) Variation in paternity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: no detectable influence of sperm numbers or sperm length. Behavioral Ecology 14: 539-545.
18. García-González F, Simmons LW (2005) Sperm viability matters in insect sperm competition. Current Biology 15: 271-275.
19. Poiani A (2006) Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60: 289-310.
20. Dunlap WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ (1996) Meta-Analysis of Experiments With Matched Groups or Repeated Measures Designs. Psychological Methods 1: 170-177.
21. Hedges L, Olkin I (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York: Academic Press.
22. Snook RR (2005) Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 46-53.
23. Kilgallon SJ, Simmons LW (2005) Image content influences mens semen quality. Biology Letters 1: 235-255.
24. Cornwallis CK, Birkhead TR (2007) Changes in Sperm Quality and Numbers in Response to Experimental Manipulation of Male Social Status and Female Attractiveness. Am Nat 170: 758-770.
25. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L (2007) Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Ejaculate Composition. Am Nat 169: E158-E172.
26. Tsutsui ND (2004) Scents of self: The expression component of self/ nonself recognition systems. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41: 713-727.
27. Reeve HK (1989) The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. American Naturalist 133: 407-435.
28. Starks PT (2004) Recognition systems: from components to conservation. Ann Zool Fenn 41: 689-690.
29. Lacy R, Sherman PW (1983) Kin recognition by phenotype matching. American Naturalist 121: 489-512.
30. Halpin ZT (1991) Kin recognition cues of vertebrates. In: Hepper PG ed. Kin recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991. pp 220-258.
31. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB eds. Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science 1997. pp 69-96.
32. Matsumoto Y, Mizanumo M (2006) Olfactory memory capacity of the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Biology Letters 2: 608-610.
33. Matsumoto Y, Mizunami M (2002) Lifetime olfactory memory in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Journal of Comparative Physiology 188: 295-299.
34. Simmons LW (1990) Pheromonal cues for the recognition of kin by female field crickets, Gryllus bimaculatus. Animal Behaviour 40: 192-194.
35. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends in Neurosciences 24: 609-616.
36. Ivy TM, Weddle CB, Sakaluk SK (2005) Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272: 2475-2478.
37. Rousset F, Roze D (2007) Constraints on the origin and maintenance of genetic kin recognition. Evolution 61: 2320-2330.
38. Gardner A, West SA (2007) Social evolution: the decline and fall of genetic kin recognition. Current Biology 17: R810-R812.
39. Fellowes MDE (1998) Do non-social insects get the (kin) recognition they deserve? Ecological Entomology 23: 223-227.