Does size always matter? Mate choice and sperm allocation in Panulirus guttatus, a highly sedentary, habitat-specialist spiny lobster

Abstract

Spotted spiny lobsters, Panulirus guttatus, are small, obligate reef-dwellers that exhibit a highly sedentary lifestyle and a low tendency to aggregate with conspecifics, and that reproduce asynchronously year-round. Individual females can produce multiple clutches per year but have a short receptivity per clutch. As in most spiny lobsters, females of P. guttatus mate only once per clutch and resist further mating attempts, features that may favour development of female mate choice but limit the potential for sperm competition. We separately examined mate choice by large and small mature females through laboratory experiments that controlled for effects of male–male competition, quality of shelter, and mere social attraction. Only large females expressed preference for larger males relative to their own size, suggesting that only large females that mate with small males risk sperm limitation on fecundity success. In couples that mated, males deposited rather small, thinly spread spermatophores on the sterna of females. Spermatophore area (considered as a proxy measure of sperm content) increased with male size and showed no relationship with female size, suggesting that males of P. guttatus have a short sperm-recovery period or do not exhibit strategic sperm allocation in a non-competitive context. A comparison of average sperm allocation between P. guttatus and its sympatric species, P. argus (a much larger, highly mobile, and highly social species with more seasonal reproductive periods and a longer receptivity of females per clutch), suggests that males of P. guttatus allocate proportionally less sperm to females, on average, than males of P. argus do. According to predictions of across-species risk models, this result suggests that males of P. guttatus perceive lower average levels of sperm competition risk than males of P. argus do, implying that different Panulirus species may exhibit different mating strategies in accordance with their particular life-history and sociobiological traits.

The better, the choosier: A meta‐analysis on interindividual variation of male mate choice

“…Moreover, we only considered studies that used only one male in each trial, otherwise male mating decisions can be influenced by other males (even in female‐biased sex ratios; Dougherty, 2020). We made one exception to this rule for Magallón‐Gayón et al (2011), in which a female was given a choice between two males that were tethered and isolated from one another. In that case, once a female chose a male, the couple’s interaction could be classified as a no‐choice mate choice test from the male perspective.…”

The effect of individual state on the strength of mate choice in females and males

“…This resulted in 1230 promising studies, which were downloaded and read in order to test against my inclusion criteria. For this study, I successfully extracted data from 108 studies: 82 studies provided data for females ( Archard et al, 2006 ; Atwell & Wagner, 2014 ; Atwell & Wagner, 2015 ; Auld et al, 2016 ; Bakker et al, 1999 ; Bastien et al, 2018 ; Bolund et al, 2010a ; Bolund et al, 2010b ; Borg et al, 2006 ; Brandt et al, 2005 ; Buchholz, 2004 ; Burley & Foster, 2006 ; Burley & Moran, 1979 ; Carrière & McNeil, 1990 ; Chen et al, 2018 ; Choudhury & Black, 1993 ; Churchill et al, 2019 ; Cordoba-Aguilar et al, 2003 ; Dakin & Montgomerie, 2014 ; Farrell et al, 2015 ; Fisher & Rosenthal, 2006 ; Gray, 1999 ; Griggio & Hoi, 2010 ; Guevara-Fiore et al, 2010 ; Hamilton & Poulin, 1999 ; Havens et al, 2011 ; Head et al, 2017 ; Hernandez-Jimenez & Rios-Cardenas, 2017 ; Honarmand et al, 2015 ; Hopwood et al, 2016 ; Hunt et al, 2005 ; Iglesias-Carrasco et al, 2017 ; Jennions et al, 1995 ; Joyce et al, 2009 ; Judge et al, 2014 ; Klein et al, 2012 ; Kodric-Brown & Nicoletto, 2001 ; Krishna & Hegde, 2003 ; Lerch et al, 2011 ; Ligout et al, 2012 ; López, 1999 ; Luck & Joly, 2005 ; Lynch et al, 2005 ; Lyons et al, 2014 ; Magallon-Gayon et al, 2011 ; Mair & Blackwell, 1998 ; Maksimowich & Mathis, 2001 ; Manrique & Lazzari, 1994 ; Mazz...…”

Cryptic Female Choice in Crustaceans

“…For example, removal of sperm subsequent to matings has been described for rock shrimps (R. typus, Thiel and Hinojosa 2003), and anecdotally also for crayfishes (Pacifastacus leniusculus, Berry and Breithaupt 2010) and spiny lobsters (Panulirus guttatus, Magallón-Gayón et al 2011). Selective sperm removal by females remains among the strongest indicators for cryptic female choice because it can be directly observed.…”