Maternal effects, but no good or compatible genes for sperm competitiveness in Australian crickets

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1257-1266

  Dowling, Damian K ^a,b   Nystrand, Magdalena ^a,b   Simmons, Leigh W ^b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Genetic compatibility; Good sperm; Sexy sperm; Sperm competition; Sperm offense

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; CRICKET; CYTOPLASM; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; MATERNAL EFFECT; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; POLYANDRY; SPERM COMPETITION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETICS; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SPERMATOZOON;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GRYLLIDAE; MALE; SPERMATOZOA;

GRYLLIDAE; TELEOGRYLLUS OCEANICUS;

EID: 77953737403     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00912.x     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Arnqvist G, Danielsson I. Copulatory behavior, genital morphology, and male fertilization success in water striders. Evolution 1999, 53:147-156.
2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60:145-164.
3. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. Sexual conflict 2005, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
4. Bilde T, Friberg U, Maklakov A A, Fry J D, Arnqvist G. The genetic architecture of fitness in a seed beetle: assessing the potential for indirect genetic benefits of female choice. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:295.
5. Bilde T, Foged A, Schilling N, Arnqvist G. Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 2009, 324:1705-1706.
6. Birkhead T R, Møller A P. Sperm competition and sexual selection 1998, Academic Press, San Diego, CA
7. Birkhead T R, Chaline N, Biggins J D, Burke T, Pizzari T. Nontransitivity of paternity in a bird. Evolution 2004, 58:416-420.
8. Birkhead T R, Pellatt E J, Brekke P, Yeates R, Castillo-Juarez H. Genetic effects on sperm design in the zebra finch. Nature 2005, 434:383-387.
9. Bjork A, Starmer W T, Higginson D M, Rhodes C J, Pitnick S. Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2007, 274:1779-1788.
10. Chapman T. Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 2001, 87:511-521.
11. Charlesworth B. Fisher, Medawar, Hamilton and the evolution of aging. Genetics 2000, 156:927-931.
12. Charlesworth B, Hughes K A. Age-specific inbreeding depression and components of genetic variance in relation to the evolution of senescence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1996, 93:6140-6145.
13. Civetta A, Clark A G. Correlated effects of sperm competition and postmating female mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000, 97:13162-13165.
14. Clark A G. Sperm competition and the maintenance of polymorphism. Heredity 2002, 88:148-153.
15. Clark A G, Begun D J. Female genotypes affect sperm displacement in Drosophila. Genetics 1998, 149:1487-1493.
16. Clark A G, Aguade M, Prout T, Harshman L G, Langley C H. Variation in sperm displacement and its association with accessory-gland protein loci in drosophila-melanogaster. Genetics 1995, 139:189-201.
17. Clark A G, Dermitzakis E T, Civetta A. Nontransitivity of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Evolution 2000, 54:1030-1035.
18. Cockerham C C, Weir B S. Quadratic analyses of reciprocal crosses. Biometrics 1977, 33:187-203.
19. Curtsinger J W. Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. Am. Nat. 1991, 138:93-102.
20. Dowling D K, Friberg U, Arnqvist G. A comparison of nuclear and cytoplasmic genetic effects on sperm competitiveness and female remating in a seed beetle. J. Evol. Biol. 2007a, 20:2113-2125.
21. Dowling D K, Nowostawski A L, Arnqvist G. Effects of cytoplasmic genes on sperm viability and sperm morphology in a seed beetle: implications for sperm competition theory?. J. Evol. Biol. 2007b, 20:358-368.
22. Dowling D K, Friberg U, Lindell J. Evolutionary implications of non neutral mitochondrial genetic variation. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:546-554.
23. Dziminski M A, Roberts J D, Simmons L W. Fitness consequences of parental compatibility in the frog Crinia georgiana. Evolution 2008, 62:879-886.
24. Evans J P, Rutstein A N. Postcopulatory sexual selection favours intrinsically good sperm competitors. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 2008, 62:1167-1173.
25. Evans J P, Simmons L W. The genetic basis of traits regulating sperm competition and polyandry: can selection favour the evolution of good- and sexy-sperm?. Genetica 2008, 134:5-19.
26. Evans J P, García-González F, Marshall D J. Sources of genetic and phenotypic variance in fertilization rates and larval traits in a sea urchin. Evolution 2007, 61:2832-2838.
27. Falconer D, Mackay T F C. Introduction to quantitative genetics 1996, Longman, London
28. Friberg U, Dowling D K. No evidence of mitochondrial genetic variation for sperm competition within a population of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:1798-1807.
29. Friberg U, Lew T A, Byrne P G, Rice W R. Assessing the potential for an ongoing arms race within and between the sexes: selection and heritable variation. Evolution 2005, 59:1540-1551.
30. Fry J. Estimation of genetic variances and covariances by restricted maximum likelihood using PROC MIXED. Genetic analysis of complex traits using SAS 2004, 11-34. Saxton A. Pp., , ed., SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
31. Gage M J G, Morrow E H. Experimental evidence for the evolution of numerous, tiny sperm via sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 2003, 13:754-757.
32. Gage M J G, Macfarlane C P, Yeates S, Ward R G, Searle J B, Parker G A. Spermatozoal traits and sperm competition in Atlantic salmon: relative sperm velocity is the primary determinant of fertilization success. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14:44-47.
33. García-González F. The relative nature of fertilization success: implications for the study of post-copulatory sexual selection. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:140.
34. García-González F, Simmons L W. The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J. Evol. Biol. 2005a, 18:1097-1103.
35. García-González F, Simmons L W. Sperm viability matters in insect sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 2005b, 15:271-275.
36. García-González F, Simmons L W. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:32-36.
37. Gay L, Hosken D J, Vasudev R, Tregenza T, Eady P E. Sperm competition and maternal effects differentially influence testis and sperm size in Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:1143-1150.
38. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:404-407.
39. Houle D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 1992, 130:195-204.
40. House C M, Simmons L W. Relative influence of male and female genital morphology on paternity in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16:889-897.
41. Hughes K A. The evolutionary genetics of male life history characters in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 1995, 49:521-537.
42. Hughes K A. Quantitative genetics of sperm precedence in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1997, 145:139-151.
43. Ivy T M. Good genes, genetic compatibility and the evolution of polyandry: use of the diallel cross to address competing hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 2007, 20:479-487.
44. Jennions M D, Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 2000, 75:21-64.
45. Jones T M, Elgar M A. The role of male age, sperm age and mating history on fecundity and fertilization success in the hide beetle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271:1311-1318.
46. Keller L, Reeve H K. Why do females mate with multiple males-the sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Study Behav. 1995, 24:291-315.
47. Kosuda K. The aging effect on male mating activity in drosophila-melanogaster. Behav. Genet. 1985, 15:297-303.
48. LaMunyon C W, Ward S. Evolution of sperm size in nematodes: sperm competition favours larger sperm. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 1999, 266:263-267.
49. Levitan D R. Sperm velocity and longevity trade off each other and influence fertilization in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 2000, 267:531-534.
50. Lewis S M, Austad S N. Sources of intraspecific variation in sperm precedence in red flour beetles. Am. Nat. 1990, 135:351-359.
51. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits 1998, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
52. Møller A P, Mousseau T A, Rudolfsen G. Females affect sperm swimming performance: a field experiment with barn swallows Hirundo rustica. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:1343-1350.
53. Moore P J, Harris W E, Montrose V T, Levin D, Moore A J. Constraints on evolution and postcopulatory sexual selection: trade-offs among ejaculate characteristics. Evolution 2004, 58:1773-1780.
54. Morrow E H, Gage M J G. Artificial selection and heritability of sperm length in Gryllus bimaculatus. Heredity 2001, 87:356-362.
55. Mousseau T A, Roff D A. Natural-Selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity 1987, 59:181-197.
56. Neff B D, Pitcher T E. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:19-38.
57. Parker G A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1970, 45:525-567.
58. Pitcher T E, Neff B D. MHC class IIB alleles contribute to both additive and nonadditive genetic effects on survival in Chinook salmon. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15:2357-2365.
59. Pitcher T E, Neff B D. Genetic quality and offspring performance in Chinook salmon: implications for supportive breeding. Conserv. Genet. 2007, 8:607-616.
60. Pitnick S. Investment in testes and the cost of making long sperm in Drosophila. Am. Nat. 1996, 148:57-80.
61. Promislow D E L, Tatar M. Mutation and senescence: where genetics and demography meet. Genetica 1998, 102-103:299-314.
62. Puurtinen M, Ketola T, Kotiaho J S. Genetic compatibility and sexual selection. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20:157-158.
63. Radwan J. Intraspecific variation in sperm competition success in the bulb mite: a role for sperm size. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1996, 263:855-859.
64. Radwan J. Heritability of sperm competition success in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. J. Evol. Biol. 1998, 11:321-327.
65. Radwan J. Male age, germline mutations and the benefits of polyandry. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6:581-586.
66. Radwan J, Michalczyk L, Prokop Z. Age dependence of male mating ability and sperm competition success in the bulb mite. Anim. Behav. 2005, 69:1101-1105.
67. Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T. Genetic compatibility and hatching success in the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:286-288.
68. Roff D A. Life history evolution 2002, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
69. Roff D A, Sokolovska N. Extra-nuclear effects on growth and development in the sand cricket Gryllus firmus. J. Evol. Biol. 2004, 17:663-671.
70. Schäfer M A, Uhl G. Determinants of paternity success in the spider Pholcus phalangioides (Pholcidae: Araneae): the role of male and female mating behaviour. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2002, 51:368-377.
71. Schulte-Hostedde A I, Millar J S. Intraspecific variation of testis size and sperm length in the yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus): implications for sperm competition and reproductive success. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2004, 55:272-277.
72. Service P M, Fales A J. Evolution of delayed reproductive senescence in male fruit-flies-sperm competition. Genetica 1993, 91:111-125.
73. Sherman C D H, Wapstra E, Olsson M. Consistent male-male paternity differences across female genotypes. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:232-234.
74. Simmons L W. The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 2001a, 14:585-594.
75. Simmons L W. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects 2001b, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
76. Simmons L W. 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. 2003, 16:624-634.
77. Simmons L W. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:125-146.
78. Simmons L W, Moore A J. Evolutionary quantitative genetics of sperm. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective 2009, 401-430. Birkhead T R, Hosken D JPitnick S. Pp., , eds., Elsevier, London
79. Simmons L W, Roberts B. Bacterial immunity traded for sperm viability in male crickets. Science 2005, 309:2031.
80. Simmons L W, Wernham J, García-González F, Kamien D. Variation in paternity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: no detectable influence of sperm numbers or sperm length. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:539-545.
81. Simmons L W, Zuk M. Age structure of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus-Oceanicus. Ethology 1994, 98:333-340.
82. Stockley P. Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:271-278.
83. Tregenza T, Wedell N. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9:1013-1027.
84. Tregenza T, Attia F, Bushaiba S S. Repeatability and heritability of sperm competition outcomes in males and females of Tribolium castaneum. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:817-823.
85. Ward P I. Sperm length is heritable and sex-linked in the yellow dung fly (Scathophaga stercoraria). J. Zool. 2000, 251:349-353.
86. Wedekind C, Müller R, Spicher H. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14:980-986.
87. Wigby S, Chapman T. Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:316-321.
88. Wigby S, Sirot L K, Linklater J R, Buehner N, Calboli F C F, Bretman A, Wolfner M F, Chapman T. Seminal fluid protein allocation and male reproductive success. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:751-757.
89. Wilson N, Tubman S C, Eady P E, Robertson G W. Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1997, 264:1491-1495.
90. Yasui Y. A " good-sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 1997, 149:573-584.
91. Zeh J A, Zeh D W. The evolution of polyandry.2. Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1997, 264:69-75.
92. Zeh J A, Zeh D W. Maternal inheritance, epigenetics and the evolution of polyandry. Genetica 2008, 134:45-54.