Male house mice do not adjust sperm allocation in response to odours from related or unrelated rivals

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 78, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 685-690

  Ramm, Steven A ^a   Stockley, Paula ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

copulatory behaviour; copulatory plug; house mouse; inclusive fitness; Mus musculus domesticus; relatedness; rodent; sperm allocation; sperm competition

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COPULATION; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INCLUSIVE FITNESS; INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION; ODOR; RELATEDNESS; REPRODUCTIVE COST; RODENT; SEX ALLOCATION; SPERM COMPETITION;

MUS MUSCULUS; MUS MUSCULUS DOMESTICUS; RODENTIA;

EID: 69249208484     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.018     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Armstrong S.D., Robertson D.H.L., Cheetham S.A., Hurst J.L., and Beynon R.J. Structural and functional differences in isoforms of major urinary proteins: a male-specific protein that preferentially binds a male pheromone. Biochemical Journal 391 (2005) 343-350
2. Bellis M.A., Baker R.R., and Gage M.J.G. Variation in rat ejaculates consistent with the kamikaze-sperm hypothesis. Journal of Mammalogy 71 (1990) 479-480
3. Brennan P.A., and Kendrick K.M. Mammalian social odours: attraction and individual recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361 (2006) 2061-2078
4. Bronson F.H. Reproductive ecology of the house mouse. Quarterly Review of Biology 54 (1979) 265-299
5. Bronson F.H., Dagg C.P., and Snell G.D. Reproduction. In: Green E.L. (Ed). Biology of the Laboratory Mouse (1966), McGraw-Hill, New York 187-204
6. Carazo P., Font E., and Alfthan B. Chemosensory assessment of sperm competition levels and the evolution of internal spermatophore guarding. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274 (2007) 261-267
7. Cheetham S.A., Thom M.D., Jury F., Ollier W.E.R., Beynon R.J., and Hurst J.L. The genetic basis of individual-recognition signals in the mouse. Current Biology 17 (2007) 1771-1777
8. Dean M.D., Ardlie K.G., and Nachman M.W. The frequency of multiple paternity suggests that sperm competition is common in house mice (Mus domesticus). Molecular Ecology 15 (2006) 4141-4151
9. delBarco-Trillo J., and Ferkin M.H. Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. Nature 431 (2004) 446-449
10. delBarco-Trillo J., and Ferkin M.H. Male meadow voles respond differently to risk and intensity of sperm competition. Behavioral Ecology 17 (2006) 581-585
11. Dewsbury D.A. Ejaculate cost and male choice. American Naturalist 119 (1982) 601-610
12. Engqvist L., and Reinhold K. Pitfalls in experiments testing predictions from sperm competition theory. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18 (2005) 116-123
13. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. ESHRE Monographs: Manual on Basic Semen Analysis (2002), Oxford University Press, Oxford
14. Evans J.P., Pierotti M., and Pilastro A. Male mating behavior and ejaculate expenditure under sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquitofish. Behavioral Ecology 14 (2003) 268-273
15. Festing M.F.W., Overend P., Gaines Das R., Cortina Borja M., and Berdoy M. The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the Use of Animals in Research Through Better Experimental Design (2002), Royal Society of Medicine Press, London
16. Firman R.C., and Simmons L.W. Polyandry, sperm competition, and reproductive success in mice. Behavioral Ecology 19 (2008) 695-702
17. Hamilton W.D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1964) 1-52
18. Hurst J.L., and Beynon R.J. Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. Bioessays 26 (2004) 1288-1298
19. Hurst J.L., Payne C.E., Nevison C.M., Marie A.D., Humphries R.E., Robertson D.H.L., Cavaggioni A., and Beynon R.J. Individual recognition in mice mediated by major urinary proteins. Nature 414 (2001) 631-634
20. Lenochova P., Roberts S.C., and Havlicek J. Methods of human body odor sampling: the effect of freezing. Chemical Senses 34 (2009) 127-138
21. Marsden H.M., and Bronson F.H. Estrous synchrony in mice: alteration by exposure to male urine. Science 144 (1964) 1469
22. Martin P.A., Reimers T.J., Lodge J.R., and Dziuk P.J. Effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from 2 males on proportions of offspring. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 39 (1974) 251-258
23. O'Brien, R.G. 1998. A tour of UnifyPow: a SAS module/macro for sample-size analysis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International Conference, pp. 1346-1355. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute. www.bio.ri.cof.org/power.html
24. Parker G.A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews 45 (1970) 525-567
25. Parker G.A. Sperm competition games: raffles and roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 242 (1990) 120-126
26. Parker G.A. Sperm competition games: sneaks and extra-pair copulations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 242 (1990) 127-133
27. Parker G.A. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead T.R., and Møller A.P. (Eds). Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection (1998), Academic Press, San Diego 3-54
28. Parker G.A. Sperm competition games between related males. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 267 (2000) 1027-1032
29. Parker G.A., and Ball M.A. Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biology Letters 1 (2005) 235-238
30. Parker G.A., Ball M.A., Stockley P., and Gage M.J.G. Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 263 (1996) 1291-1297
31. Parker G.A., Ball M.A., Stockley P., and Gage M.J.G. Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 264 (1997) 1793-1802
32. Pizzari T., Cornwallis C.K., Løvlie H., Jakobsson S., and Birkhead T.R. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature 426 (2003) 70-74
33. Pound N. Effects of morphine on electrically evoked contractions of the vas deferens in two congeneric rodent species differing in sperm competition intensity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 266 (1999) 1755-1758
34. Pound N., and Gage M.J.G. Prudent sperm allocation in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus: a mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment. Animal Behaviour 68 (2004) 819-823
35. Preston B.T., and Stockley P. The prospect of sexual competition stimulates premature and repeated ejaculation in a mammal. Current Biology 16 (2006) R239-R241
36. Preston B.T., Stevenson I.R., Pemberton J.M., Coltman D.W., and Wilson K. Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal: the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive success. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270 (2003) 633-640
37. Quinn G.P., and Keough M.J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
38. Ramm S.A., and Stockley P. Ejaculate allocation under varying sperm competition risk in the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus. Behavioral Ecology 18 (2007) 491-495
39. Ramm S.A., and Stockley P. Adaptive plasticity of mammalian sperm production in response to social experience. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276 (2009) 745-751
40. Ramm S.A., Parker G.A., and Stockley P. Sperm competition and the evolution of male reproductive anatomy in rodents. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272 (2005) 949-955
41. Roberts S.C. Scent-marking. In: Wolff J.O., and Sherman P.W. (Eds). Rodent Societies (2007), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 255-266
42. Schaus J.M., and Sakaluk S.K. Ejaculate expenditures of male crickets in response to varying risk and intensity of sperm competition: not all species play games. Behavioral Ecology 12 (2001) 740-745
43. Sherborne A.L., Thom M.D., Paterson S., Jury F., Ollier W.E.R., Stockley P., Beynon R.J., and Hurst J.L. The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Current Biology 17 (2007) 2061-2066
44. Simmons L.W., Denholm A., Jackson C., Levy E., and Madon E. Male crickets adjust ejaculate quality with both risk and intensity of sperm competition. Biology Letters 3 (2007) 520-522
45. Smadja C., and Ganem G. Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behavioral Ecology 13 (2002) 312-320
46. Stockley P., and Preston B.T. Sperm competition and diversity in rodent copulatory behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17 (2004) 1048-1057
47. Thom M.D., and Hurst J.L. Individual recognition by scent. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41 (2004) 765-787
48. Thom M.D., Stockley P., Jury F., Ollier W.E.R., Beynon R.J., and Hurst J.L. The direct assessment of genetic heterozygosity through scent in the mouse. Current Biology 18 (2008) 619-623
49. Thomas M.L., and Simmons L.W. Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory. PLoS ONE 3 (2008) e2151
50. Thomas M.L., and Simmons L.W. Male-derived cuticular hydrocarbons signal sperm competition intensity and affect ejaculate expenditure in crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276 (2009) 383-388
51. Vaughn A.A., delBarco-Trillo J., and Ferkin M.H. Sperm investment in male meadow voles is affected by the condition of the nearby conspecifics. Behavioral Ecology 19 (2008) 1159-1164
52. Wedell N., Gage M.J.G., and Parker G.A. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (2002) 313-320