Sources of Intraspecific Variation in Sperm Precedence in Red Flour Beetles

Lewis, Sara M.; Austad, Steven N.

doi:10.1086/285050

Cited by 176 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When females mate with more than one male, male reproductive success will not only be affected by their access to receptive female mating partners, but also by the competitive ability of their sperm in the subsequent struggle for fertilisations (Lewis and Austad 1990;Dziuk 1996). Postcopulatory sexual selection will thus act on such male traits that for instance (a) increase the relative number of sperm that are transferred during copulation (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Engqvist

2006

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata, males provide females with saliva secretions as nuptial food gifts. Consequently, females derive material benefits and possibly also genetic benefits from multiple matings. Females therefore generally should have a high motivation to remate. Males, on the other hand, do not share this interest, which will generate a sexual conflict over remating interval, possibly leading to male adaptations that prevent females from remating with other males. In this study, I found that mated females were less prone to copulate than virgin females, despite female benefits of multiple matings. Further, I found that the remating interval was significantly longer if the first copulation was long compared to shorter matings. This effect does not entirely depend on copulation duration per se, but on the amount of saliva, that a female is consuming during copulation. These results suggest a mating-induced refractory period and can be interpreted as male manipulation of female remating behaviour mediated through substances in the nuptial gift. Alternatively, receiving large nuptial gifts may decrease the prospective direct fitness benefits from further copulations, and thus change optimal female remating rate. Furthermore, gift size has been shown to correlate with male nutritional condition, which may be an indicator of male genetic quality. Females may therefore benefit indirectly by not remating following copulations involving large saliva gifts. In this scenario, female remating interval would be an effect of cryptic female choice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Engqvist

2006

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, a significant proportion of the variance in P 2 would be attributable to male pairs. However, the fact that P 2 -values in this experiment are repeatable or, as Lewis and Austad (1990) show with a nested ANOVA, that some of the variance that is attributable to male pairs does not provide any information about the mechanism behind it. It is easy to see that a high repeatability can be a consequence of sperm competition, female sperm choice or both, a point made clear by Lewis and Austad (1990, p. 356).…”

Section: Variance Attributable To Malesmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…In this experiment several pairs of males are allowed to inseminate several different females (Table 1a), a design used in a study on Tribolium castaneum by Lewis and Austad (1990). In Table 1a, n is the number of male pairs, and m the number of females inseminated by each male pair.…”

Section: Variance Attributable To Malesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He outlines two complementary experiments needed to test these criteria. The first experiment is that used by Lewis and Austad (1990), in which several pairs of males each inseminate a number of different females. Calculating the repeatability of P 2 within pairs of males mated to different females estimates the variance in P 2 that is attributable to males.…”

Section: Birkhead's Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinguishing Between Female Sperm Choice Versus Male Sperm Competition: A Comment on Birkhead

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…P 2 is highly variable not only across species (Parker 1970a,b), but typically also within a species (e.g. Lewis & Austad 1990; analysed and reviewed in Simmons & Siva-Jothy 1998). The variation across species has been seen as the result of male (Parker 1970a) or female (Walker 1980;Eberhard 1985Eberhard , 1996 adaptations, or, more recently, their interaction (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Sloppy’ sperm mixing and intraspecific variation in sperm precedence (P₂) patterns

Harvey

Parker

2000

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sperm precedence patterns are typically highly variable within (and between) species. Intraspeci¢c variation in sperm precedence (measured as P 2 , the proportion of progeny fathered by the last male to mate) is frequently seen as a candidate for adaptive interpretation through either male e¡ects (e.g. body size), female e¡ects (e.g. cryptic female choice) or an interaction between the two. Here we show, using computer simulation, that if ejaculates divide into a number of`packets' and packets from two males mix randomly, then a variety of patterns of sperm precedence may result. We term this process`sloppy' mixing. If ejaculates break into a small number of packets, bimodal P 2 distributions are predicted. As the number of packets is increased, then a complex series of changes through multimodal and £at to unimodal distributions results. Sloppy mixing can thus result in many of the observed P 2 distributions. Sloppy mixing is unlikely to change the predictions of adaptive models of sperm competition.

show abstract

Sources of Intraspecific Variation in Sperm Precedence in Red Flour Beetles

Cited by 176 publications

References 22 publications

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Distinguishing Between Female Sperm Choice Versus Male Sperm Competition: A Comment on Birkhead

‘Sloppy’ sperm mixing and intraspecific variation in sperm precedence (P₂) patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Sources of Intraspecific Variation in Sperm Precedence in Red Flour Beetles

Cited by 176 publications

References 22 publications

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Nuptial gift consumption influences female remating in a scorpionfly: male or female control of mating rate?

Distinguishing Between Female Sperm Choice Versus Male Sperm Competition: A Comment on Birkhead

‘Sloppy’ sperm mixing and intraspecific variation in sperm precedence (P2) patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

‘Sloppy’ sperm mixing and intraspecific variation in sperm precedence (P₂) patterns