Fertilization success and the estimation of genetic variance in sperm competitiveness

Evolution

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 746-756

  Garcia Gonzalez, Francisco ^a   Evans, Jonathan P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

External fertilization; Good sperm; North Carolina II; Polyandry; Post pollination selection; Quantitative genetics; Sexy sperm

Indexed keywords

EGG; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; FERTILIZATION (REPRODUCTION); GENETIC VARIATION; HERITABILITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; POLYANDRY; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SAMPLING; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERM COMPETITION; STOCHASTICITY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT; POLLEN; SPERMATOZOON;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; GENETIC VARIATION; MALE; PLANTS; POLLEN; SELECTION, GENETIC; SPERMATOZOA;

NORTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79952055905     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01127.x     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Arnqvist, G., and I. Danielsson 1999. Copulatory behavior, genital morphology, and male fertilization success in water striders. Evolution 53:147-156.
2. Bijma, P., and M. J. Wade 2008. The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection. J. Evol. Biol. 21:1175-1188.
3. Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller, eds. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA .
4. Birkhead, T. R., A. P. Møller, and W. J. Sutherland 1993. Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J. Theor. Biol. 161:51-60.
5. Birkhead, T. R., N. Chaline, J. D. Biggins, T. Burke, and T. Pizzari 2004. Nontransitivity of paternity in a bird. Evolution 58:416-420.
6. Birkhead, T. R., E. J. Pellat, P. Brekke, R. Yeates, and H. Castillo-Juarez 2005. Genetic effects on sperm design in the zebra finch. Nature 434:383-387.
7. Bjork, A., W. T. Starmer, D. M. Higginson, C. J. Rhodes, and S. Pitnick 2007. Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274:1779-1788.
8. Campbell, D. R. 1997. Genetic and environmental variation in life-history traits of a monocarpic perennial: a decade-long field experiment. Evolution 51:373-382.
9. Clark, A. G. 2002. Sperm competition and the maintenance of polymorphism. Heredity 88:148-153.
10. Clark, A. G., D. J. Begun, and T. Prout 1999. Female x male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283:217-220.
11. Clark, A. G., E. T. Dermitzakis, and A. Civetta 2000. Nontransitivity of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Evolution 54:1030-1035.
12. Comstock, R. E., and H. F. Robinson 1948. The components of genetic variance in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics 4:254-266.
13. Cook, P. A., I. F. Harvey, and G. A. Parker 1997. Predicting variation in sperm precedence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 352:771-780.
14. Curtsinger, J. W. 1991. Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. Am. Nat. 138:93-102.
15. Dawson, P. S. 1965. Estimation of components of phenotypic variance for developmental rate in Tribolium. Heredity 20:403-417.
16. Delph, L. F., and K. Havens 1998. Pollen competition in flowering plants. Pp. 149-173 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA .
17. Dowling, D. K., U. Friberg, and G. Arnqvist 2007. A comparison of nuclear and cytoplasmic genetic effects on sperm competitiveness and female remating in a seed beetle. J. Evol. Biol. 20:2113-2125.
18. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
19. Evans, J. P., and D. J. Marshall 2005. Male-by-female interactions influence fertilization success and mediate the benefits of polyandry in the sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma. Evolution 59:106-112.
20. Evans, J. P., and L. W. Simmons 2008. The genetic basis of traits regulating sperm competition and polyandry: can selection favour the evolution of good- and sexy-sperm? Genetica 134:5-19.
21. Evans, J. P., F. García-González, and D. J. Marshall 2007. Sources of genetic and phenotypic variance in sperm performance and larval traits in a sea urchin. Evolution 61:2832-2838.
22. Friberg, U., T. A. Lew, P. G. Byrne, and W. R. Rice 2005. Assessing the potential for an ongoing arms race within and between the sexes: selection and heritable variation. Evolution 59:1540-1551.
23. Fuller, J. L., and M. E. Hahn 1976. Issues in the genetics of social behavior. Behav. Genet. 6:391-406.
24. García-González, F. 2008a. Male genetic quality and the inequality between paternity success and fertilization success: consequences for studies of sperm competition and the evolution of polyandry. Evolution 62:1653-1665.
25. García-González, F. 2008b. The relative nature of fertilization success: implications for the study of post-copulatory sexual selection. BMC Evol. Biol. 8:140.
26. Gilchrist, A. S., and L. Partridge 1997. Heritability of pre-adult viability differences can explain apparent heritability of sperm displacement ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1271-1275.
27. Hardling, R., and H. Kokko 2005. The evolution of prudent choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7:697-715.
28. Hood, G. M. 2009. PopTools version 3.1.1. Available on the internet. URL .
29. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195-204.
30. Hughes, K. A. 1997. Quantitative genetics of sperm precedence in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 145:139-151.
31. Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75:21-64.
32. Keller, L., and H. K. Reeve 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Stud. Behav. 24:291-315.
33. Kozielska, M., A. Krzeminska, and J. Radwan 2004. Good genes and the maternal effects of polyandry on offspring reproductive success in the bulb mite. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:165-170.
34. Lewis, S. M., and S. N. Austad 1990. Sources of intraspecific variation in sperm precedence in red flour beetles. Am. Nat. 135:351-359.
35. Lynch, M., and B. Walsh 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA .
36. Lyons, E. E., N. M. Waser, M. V. Price, J. Antonovics, and A. F. Motten 1989. Sources of variation in plant reproductive success and implications for concepts of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 189:409-433.
37. Marshall, D. J., and J. P. Evans 2007. Context-dependent genetic benefits of polyandry in a marine hermaphrodite. Biol. Lett. 3:685-688.
38. Montalvo, A. M., and R. G. Shaw 1994. Quantitative genetics of sequential life-history and juvenile traits in the partially selfing perennial, Aquilegia caerulea. Evolution 48:828-841.
39. Moore, A. J., E. D. Brodie, and J. B. Wolf 1997. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process.1. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51:1352-1362.
40. Moore, P. J., W. E. Harris, V. T. Montrose, D. Levin, and A. J. Moore 2004. Constraints on evolution and postcopulatory sexual selection: trade-offs among ejaculate characteristics. Evolution 58:1773-1780.
41. Mousseau, T. A., and C. W. Fox, eds. 1998. Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford .
42. Neff, B. D., and T. E. Pitcher 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14:19-38.
43. Nilsson, T., C. Fricke, and G. Arnqvist 2003. The effects of male and female genotype on variance in male fertilization success in the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53:227-233.
44. Olsson, M., M. Pagel, R. Shine, T. Madsen, C. Doums, A. Gullberg, and H. Tegelstrom 1999. Sperm choice and sperm competition: suggestions for field and laboratory studies. Oikos 84:172-175.
45. Palumbi, S. R. 1999. All males are not created equal: fertility differences depend on gamete recognition polymorphisms in sea urchins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:12632-12637.
46. Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45:525-567.
47. Parker, G. A. 1990. Sperm competition games: raffles and roles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 242:120-126.
48. Parker, G. A. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. Pp. 3-54 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA .
49. Pitcher, T. E., and B. D. Neff 2007. Genetic quality and offspring performance in Chinook salmon: implications for supportive breeding. Conserv. Gen. 8:607-616.
50. Pitnick, S., and W. D. Brown 2000. Criteria for demonstrating female sperm choice. Evolution 54:1052-1056.
51. Pizzari, T., and T. R. Birkhead 2002. The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol. Rev. 77:183-209.
52. Prout, T., and J. Bundgaard 1977. The population genetics of sperm displacement. Genetics 85:95-124.
53. Prout, T., and A. G. Clark 1996. Polymorphism in genes that influence sperm displacement. Genetics 144:401-408.
54. Quinn, G. P., and M. J. Keough 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge .
55. Radwan, J. 1998. Heritability of sperm competition success in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. J. Evol. Biol. 11:321-327.
56. Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, J. T. Nordeide, and E. Soreng 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. J. Evol. Biol. 18:172-179.
57. Sharp, N. P., and A. F. Agrawal 2009. Sexual Selection and the random union of gametes: testing for a correlation in fitness between mates in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 174:613-622.
58. Shaw, R. G., and N. M. Waser 1994. Quantitative genetic interpretations of postpollination reproductive traits in plants. Am. Nat. 143:617-635.
59. Sheldon, B. C. 2000. Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:397-402.
60. Sherman, C. D. H., E. Wapstra, and M. Olsson 2009a. Consistent male-male paternity differences across female genotypes. Biol. Lett. 5:232-234.
61. Sherman, C. D. H., E. Wapstra, and M. Olsson 2009b. Consistent paternity skew through ontogeny in peron's tree frog (litoria peronii). Plos One 4:e8252.
62. Simmons, L. W. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ .
63. Simmons, L. W. 2005. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:125-146.
64. Simmons, L. W., and A. J. Moore 2009. Evolutionary quantitative genetics of sperm. Pp. 405-434 in T. R. Birkhead, S. Pitnick and D. J. Hosken, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Elsevier, London .
65. Simmons, L. W., D. J. Emlen, and J. L. Tomkins 2007. Sperm competition games between sneaks and guards: a comparative analysis using dimorphic male beetles. Evolution 61:2684-2692.
66. Sivinski, J. 1984. Sperm in competition. Pp. 86-115 in R. L. Smith, ed. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London .
67. Smith, R. L., ed. 1984. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York .
68. Snook, R. R. 2005. Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:46-53.
69. StatSoft, I. 2001. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. .
70. Steven, J. C., L. F. Delph, and E. D. Brodie 2007. Sexual dimorphism in the quantitative-genetic architecture of floral, leaf, and allocation traits in Silene latifolia. Evolution 61:42-57.
71. Swanson, W. J., and V. D. Vacquier 2002. The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Nat. Rev. Gen. 3:137-144.
72. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-1027.
73. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell 2002. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71-73.
74. Vacquier, V. D. 1998. Evolution of gamete recognition proteins. Science 281:1995-1998.
75. Waser, N. M., R. G. Shaw, and M. V. Price 1995. Seed set and seed mass in Ipomopsis aggregata: variance partitioning and inferences about postpollination selection. Evolution 49:80-88.
76. Wedekind, C., R. Muller, and H. Spicher 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. J. Evol. Biol. 14:980-986.
77. Wilson, N., S. C. Tubman, P. E. Eady, and G. W. Robertson 1997. Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1491-1495.
78. Yasui, Y. 1997. A "good sperm" model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am. Nat. 149:573-584.
79. Yasui, Y. 1998. The "genetic benefits" of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:246-250.
80. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh 1997. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:69-75.
81. Zeh, J. A., and D. W. Zeh 2008. Maternal inheritance, epigenetics and the evolution of polyandry. Genetica 134:45-54.