Selection on female remating interval is influenced by male sperm competition strategies and ejaculate characteristics

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 368, Issue 1613, 2013, Pages

  Alonzo, Suzanne H ^a   Pizzari, Tommaso ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Mathematical model; Polyandry; Sexual conflict; Sexual selection; Sperm allocation

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION; FECUNDITY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FERTILITY; MALE BEHAVIOR; MORTALITY; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; SELECTION; SPERM COMPETITION;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; MATE CHOICE; PHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SPERM; SPERMATOZOON; TIME;

ANIMALS; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FERTILITY; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEMEN; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPERMATOZOA; TIME FACTORS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872721123     PISSN: 09628436     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0044     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Parker GA. 1970 Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 45, 525-567. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1970.tb01176.x)
2. Parker GA. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (eds MS Blum, NA Blum), pp. 123-166. New York, NY: Academic Press.
3. Parker GA. 2006 Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 235-259. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1785)
4. Parker GA. 1998 Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In Sperm competition and sexual selection (eds TR Birkhead, AP Møller), pp. 3-54. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP. 1998 Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6. Pizzari T, Parker GA. 2009 Sperm competition and ejaculate phenotypes. In Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective (eds TR Birkhead, DJ Hosken, S Pitnick), pp. 207-245. London, UK: Elsevier.
7. Brillard JP, de Reviers M. 1979 Données nouvelle sur l'insemination des pintades. L'Aviculteur 393, 63-69.
8. Gage MJG, Morrow EH. 2003 Experimental evidence for the evolution of numerous, tiny sperm via sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 13, 754-757. (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00282-3)
9. Garcia-Gonzalez F, Simmons LW. 2005 Sperm viability matters in insect sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 15, 271-275. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.032)
10. Martin PA, Reimers TJ, Lodge JR, Dziuk PJ. 1974 The effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from two males on proportions of offspring. J. Reprod. Fert. 39, 251-258. (doi:10.1530/ jrf.0.0390251)
11. Robl JM, Dziuk PJ. 1987 Penetration of mouse eggs at various intervals after insemination as influenced by concentration of sperm and strain of male. J. Exp. Zool. 242, 181-187. (doi:10.1002/jez. 1402420209)
12. Taneja GC, Gowe RS. 1961 The effect of dosage of undiluted semen on fertility of two breeds of fowl. Brit. Poultry Sci. 2, 81-89.
13. Birkhead TR, Martinez JG, Burke T, Froman DP. 1999 Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1759-1764. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 1999.0843)
14. Gage MJG, Macfarlane CP, Yeates S, Ward RG, Searle JB, Parker GA. 2004 Spermatozoal traits and sperm competition in Atlantic salmon: relative sperm velocity is the primary determinant of fertilization success. Curr. Biol. 14, 44-47. (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00939-4)
15. Snook RR. 2005 Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 46-53. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.011)
16. Pizzari T, Worley K, Burke T, Froman DP. 2008 Sperm competition dynamics: ejaculate fertilizing efficiency changes differentially with time. BMC Evol. Biol. 8, 332. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-332)
17. Warner RR. 1997 Sperm allocation in coral reef fishes: strategies for coping with demands on sperm production. Bioscience 47, 561-564. (doi:10.2307/ 1313162)
18. Alonzo SH, Warner RR. 2000 Allocation to mate guarding or increased sperm production in a Mediterranean wrasse. Am. Nat. 156, 266-275. (doi:10.1086/303391)
19. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. 2002 Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 313-320. (doi:10. 1016/S0169-5347(02)02533-8)
20. Charnov EL. 1982 The theory of sex allocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21. Parker GA, Pizzari T. 2010 Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol. Rev. 85, 897-934.
22. Gavrilets S, Hayashi TI. 2006 The dynamics of two-and three-way sexual conflicts over mating. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 345-354. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 2005.1792)
23. Gavrilets S, Hayashi TI. 2005 Speciation and sexual conflict. Evol. Ecol. 19, 167-198. (doi:10.1007/s10682-004-7916-4)
24. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U. 2001 The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 531-539. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2000.1382)
25. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. 2005 Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 165, S5-S18. (doi:10.1086/429395)
26. Alonzo SH, Pizzari T. 2010 Male fecundity stimulation: conflict and cooperation within and between the sexes. Am. Nat. 175, 174-185. (doi:10.1086/649596)
27. South A, Lewis SM. 2011 The influence of maleejaculate quantity on female fitness: a meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 86, 299-309. (doi:10.1111/j. 1469-185X.2010.00145.x)
28. Dean R, Cornwallis CK, Lovlie H, Worley K, Richardson DS, Pizzari T. 2010 Male reproductive senescence causes potential for sexual conflict over mating. Curr. Biol. 20, 1192-1196. (doi:10.1016/j. cub.2010.04.059)
29. Kraus FB, Neumann P, van Praagh J, Moritz RFA. 2004 Sperm limitation and the evolution of extreme polyandry in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55, 494-501. (doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0706-0)
30. Warner RR, Shapiro DY, Marcanato A, Petersen CW.1995 Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 262, 135-139. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0187)
31. Hardling R, Gosden T, Aguilee R. 2008 Male mating constraints affect mutual mate choice: prudent male courting and sperm-limited females. Am. Nat. 172, 259-271. (doi:10.1086/589452)
32. White J, Wagner RH, Helfenstein F, Hatch SA, Mulard H, Naves LC, Danchin E. 2008 Multiple deleterious effects of experimentally aged sperm in a monogamous bird. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13947-13952. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0803067105)
33. Pizzari T, Dean R, Pacey A, Moore H, Bonsall MB.2008 The evolutionary ecology of pre-and post-meiotic sperm senescence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 131-140. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.003)
34. Levitan DR, Petersen C. 1995 Sperm limitation in the sea. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 228-231. (doi:10. 1016/S0169-5347(00)89071-0)
35. Levitan DR. 1993 The importance of sperm limitation to the evolution of egg size in marine invertebrates. Am. Nat. 41, 517-536. (doi:10. 1086/285489)
36. Nakatsuru K, Kramer DL. 1982 Is sperm cheap? Limited male fertility and female choice in the lemon tetra (Pisces, Characidae). Science 216, 753-755. (doi:10.1126/science.216. 4547.753)
37. Gwynne DT. 1984 Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature 307, 361-363. (doi:10.1038/307361a0)
38. Simmons LW. 2001 Sperm competition and its 10evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39. Karlsson B. 1998 Nuptial gifts, resource budgets, and reproductive output in a polyandrous butterfly. Ecology 79, 2931-2940. (doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2931:NGRBAR]2.0.CO;2)
40. Sirot LK, Buehner NA, Fiumera AC, Wolfner MF. 2009 Seminal fluid protein depletion and replenishment in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster: an ELISA-based method for tracking individual ejaculates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 1505-1513. (doi:10. 1007/s00265-009-0806-6)
41. Johnson JC, Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK. 1999 Female remating propensity contingent on sexual cannibalism in sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans: a mechanism of cryptic female choice. Behav. Ecol. 10, 227-233. (doi:10.1093/beheco/10.3.227)
42. Fowler K, Partridge L. 1989 A cost of mating in female fruitflies. Nature 338, 760-761. (doi:10.1038/338760a0)
43. Reinhardt K, Naylor RA, Siva-Jothy M. 2009 Ejaculate components delay reproductive senescence while elevating female reproductive rate in an insect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sc. USA. 106, 21 743-21747. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0905347106)
44. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005 Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Siva-Jothy MT. 2006 Trauma, disease and collateral damage: conflict in cimicids. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 269-275. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1789)
46. Hotzy C, Arnqvist G. 2009 Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 1, 404-407. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.045)
47. Wigby S, Chapman T. 2004 Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58, 1028-1037.
48. Chapman T. 2001 Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87, 511-521. (doi:10. 1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00961.x)
49. Lessells CM. 2005 Why are males bad for females? Models for the evolution of damaging male mating behavior. Am. Nat. 165, S46-S63. (doi:10.1086/ 429356)
50. Simmons LW. 2005 The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 125-146. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102403.112501)
51. Holland B, Rice WR. 1998 Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52, 1-7. (doi:10.2307/2410914)
52. Holland B, Rice WR. 1999 Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5083-5088. (doi:10.1073/ pnas.96.9.5083)
53. Lessells CM. 2006 The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 301-317. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1795)
54. Cameron E, Day T, Rowe L. 2007 Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculate composition. Am. Nat. 169, E158-E172. (doi:10.1086/516718)
55. Williams PD, Day T, Cameron E. 2005 The evolution of sperm-allocation strategies and the degree of sperm competition. Evolution 59, 492-499. (doi:10.554/04-668)
56. Tazzyman SJ, Pizzari T, Seymour RM, Pomiankowski A. 2009 The evolution of continuous variation in ejaculate expenditure strategy. Am. Nat. 174, E71-E82. (doi:10.1086/603612)
57. Ball MA, Parker GA. 1996 Sperm competition games: external fertilization and 'adaptive' infertility. J. Theor. Biol. 180, 141-150. (doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0090)
58. Engqvist L. 2012 Evolutionary modeling predicts a decrease in postcopulatory sperm viability as a response to increasing levels of sperm competition. Am. Nat. 179, 667-677. (doi:10. 1086/665000)
59. Firman RC, Simmons LW. 2010 Experimental evolution of sperm quality via postcopulatory sexual selection in house. Evolution 64, 1245-1256.
60. Wedell N, Wiklund C, Bergström J. 2009 Coevolution of non-fertile sperm and female receptivity in a butterfly. Bio. Lett. 5, 678-681. (doi:10.1098/rsbl. 2009.0452)
61. Dugatkin LA. 1997 Cooperation among animals: an evolutionary perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
62. West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A. 2007 Evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Curr. Biol. 17, R661-R672. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.004)
63. Alonzo SH. 2010 Social and coevolutionary 11 feedbacks between mating and parental investment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 99-108. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.012)
64. Parker GA, Ball MA. 2005 Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biol. Lett. 1, 235-238. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0273)
65. Fromhage L, McNamara JM, Houston AI. 2008 Sperm allocation strategies and female resistance: a unifying perspective. Am. Nat. 172, 25-33. (doi:10.1086/587806)
66. Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1997 Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215-223. (doi:10.1126/science.327542)