Female choice for males with greater fertilization success in the Swedish moor frog, Rana arvalis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 5, Issue 10, 2010, Pages

  Sherman, Craig D H ^a,b   Sagvik, Jörgen ^c   Olsson, Mats ^b,d  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; FROG; GENETIC DIFFERENCE; GENETIC SIMILARITY; HATCHING; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NONHUMAN; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERM COMPETITION; ANIMAL; DECISION MAKING; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPERMATOZOON;

AMPHIBIA; RANA ARVALIS;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; MALE; RANIDAE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPERMATOZOA;

EID: 78149455883     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013634     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Andersson M. (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton Princeton University Press.
2. Sheldon BC, Andersson S, Griffith SC, Ornborg J, Sendecka J (1999) Ultraviolet colour variation influences blue tit sex ratios. Nature 402: 874-877.
3. Pryke SR, Griffith SC (2009) Postzygotic genetic incompatibility between sympatric color morphs. Evolution 63: 793-798.
4. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
5. Ryan MJ (1992) The Tungara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
6. Arak A (1988) Female mate selection in the natterjack toad - active choice or passive attraction. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22: 317-327.
7. Bosch J, Marquez R (2001) Call timing in male-male acoustical interactions and female choice in the midwife toad Alytes obstetricans. Copeia. pp 169-177.
8. Hettyey A, Herczeg G, Laurila A, Crochet PA, Merila J (2009) Body temperature, size, nuptial colouration and mating success in male Moor Frogs (Rana arvalis). Amphibia-Reptilia 30: 37-43.
9. Morrison C, Hero JM, Smith WP (2001) Mate selection in Litoria chloris and Litoria xanthomera: Females prefer smaller males. Austral Ecology 26: 223-232.
10. Greene AE, Funk WC (2009) Sexual Selection on Morphology in an Explosive Breeding Amphibian, the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris). Journal of Herpetology 43: 244-251.
11. Taylor RC, Buchanan BW, Doherty JL (2007) Sexual selection in the squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella: the role of multimodal cue assessment in female choice. Animal Behaviour 74: 1753-1763.
12. Vasquez T, Pfennig KS. (2007) Looking on the bright side: females prefer coloration indicative of male size and condition in the sexually dichromatic spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus couchii. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62: 127-135.
13. Rosenthal GG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2004) The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: an experimental analysis using video playback. Animal Behaviour 68: 55-58.
14. Chandler CH, Zamudio KR (2008) Reproductive success by large, closely related males facilitated by sperm storage in an aggregate breeding amphibian. Molecular Ecology 17: 1564-1576.
15. Kupfer A, Wilkinson M, Gower DJ, Muller H, Jehle R (2008) Care and parentage in a skin-feeding caecilian amphibian. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a-Ecological Genetics and Physiology 309A: 460-467.
16. Vieites DR, Nieto-Roman S, Barluenga M, Palanca A, Vences M, et al. (2004) Post-mating clutch piracy in an amphibian. Nature 431: 305-308.
17. Byrne PG, Roberts JD (2000) Does multiple paternity improve fitness of the frog Crinia georgiana? Evolution 54: 968-973.
18. Dziminski MA, Roberts JD, Simmons LW (2008) Fitness consequences of parental compatibility in the frog Crinia georgiana. Evolution 62: 879-886.
19. Hettyey A, Roberts JD (2006) Sperm traits of the quacking frog, Crinia georgiana: intra- and interpopulation variation in a species with a high risk of sperm competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59: 389-396.
20. Knopp T, Merila J (2009) Multiple paternity in the moor frog, Rana arvalis. Amphibia-Reptilia 30: 515-521.
21. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Olsson M (2009) Consistent male-male paternity differences across female genotypes. Biology Letters 5: 232-234.
22. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Males with high genetic similarity to females sire more offspring in sperm competition in Peron's tree frog Litoria peronii. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275: 971-978.
23. Fog K, Schmedes A, Rosenørn-de Lasson D, (1997) Nordens Padder og Krybdyr. Copenhagen.
24. Knopp T, Heimovirta M, Kokko H, Merila J (2008) Do male moor frogs (Rana arvalis) lek with kin? Molecular Ecology 17: 2522-2530.
25. Lee JC, Correales AD (2002) Sexual dimorphism in hind-limb muscle mass is associated with male reproductive success in Bufo marinus. Journal of Herpetology 36: 502-505.
26. Rice W (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
27. Barbault R, Castanet J, Pilorge T (1980) On the use of skeletochronology in demographic-studies of amphibian and lizard populations. Bulletin De La Societe Zoologique De France-Evolution Et Zoologie 105: 347-354.
28. Eden CJ, Whiteman HH, Duobinis-Gray L, Wissinger SA (2007) Accuracy assessment of skeletochronology in the Arizona Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum). Copeia. pp 471-477.
29. Marangoni F, Schaefer E, Cajade R, Tejedo M (2009) Growth-Mark Formation and Chronology of Two Neotropical Anuran Species. Journal of Herpetology 43: 546-550.
30. Morrison C, Hero JM, Browning J (2004) Altitudinal variation in the age at maturity, longevity, and reproductive lifespan of anurans in subtropical queensland. Herpetologica 60: 34-44.
31. Dziminski MA, Roberts JD, Simmons LW (2010) Sperm morphology, motility and fertilisation capacity in the myobatrachid frog Crinia georgiana. Reproduction Fertility and Development 22: 516-522.
32. Cho C, Jung-Ha H, Willis WD, Goulding EH, Stein P, et al. (2003) Protamine 2 Deficiency Leads to Sperm DNA Damage and Embryo Death in Mice. Biol Reprod 69: 211-217.
33. Zini A, Libman J (2006) Sperm DNA damage: clinical significance in the era of assisted reproduction. CMAJ 175: 495-500.
34. Fatehi AN, Bevers MM, Schoevers E, Roelen BAJ, Colenbrander B, et al. (2006) DNA Damage in Bovine Sperm Does Not Block Fertilization and Early Embryonic Development But Induces Apoptosis After the First Cleavages. J Androl 27: 176-188.
35. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Male and female effects on fertilization success and offspring viability in the Peron's tree frog, Litoria peronii. Austral Ecology 33: 348-352.
36. Sagvik J, Uller T, Stenlund T, Olsson M (2008) Intraspecific variation in resistance of frog eggs to fungal infection. Evolutionary Ecology 22: 193-201.
37. Uller T, Sagvik J, Olsson M (2006) Crosses between frog populations reveal genetic divergence in larval life history at short geographical distance. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: 189-195.
38. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Olsson M (2009) Consistent paternity skew through ontogeny in Peron's tree frog (Litoria peronii). Plos One 4: e8252.
39. Sherman CDH, Uller T, Wapstra E, Olsson M (2008) Within-population variation in ejaculate characteristics in a prolonged breeder, Peron's tree frog, Litoria peronii. Naturwissenschaften 95: 1055-1061.
40. Garner T, Tomio G (2001) Microsatellites for use in studies of the Italian Agile Frog, Rana latastei (Boulenger). Conservation Genetics 2: 77-80.
41. Knopp T, Cano JM, Crochet PA, Marila J (2007) Contrasting levels of variation in neutral and quantitative genetic loci on island populations of moor frogs (Rana arvalis). Conservation Genetics 8: 45-56.
42. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 288-295.