SPERM DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT SPERM TRANSFER IN<i>DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER</i>

Harshman, Lawrence G.; Prout, Timothy

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01359.x

Cited by 151 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This prediction has been widely supported through (i) comparative analyses of the correlation between sperm production and the intensity of sperm competition (Short 1979(Short , 1981Harcourt et al 1981;Harvey & Harcourt 1984;Cartar 1985;Kenagy & Trombulak 1986;MÖller 1988aMÖller ,b, 1989MÖller , 1991Ginsberg & Rubenstein 1990;Jennions & Passmore 1993;Bissoondath & Wiklund 1996;Kappeler 1997;Hosken 1997Hosken , 1998, (ii) comparison of sperm production between alternative male reproductive phenotypes when these types are associated with reproductive tactics that di¡er in exposure to sperm competition (Parker 1990b;Stockley et al 1994;Gage et al 1995;Taborsky 1998;Simmons et al 1999), and (iii) investigations of facultative adjustment of the number of sperm produced or inseminated while varying the male's perceived risk of encountering sperm competition (Baker & Bellis 1989, 1993Bellis et al 1990;Gage 1991;Gage & Baker 1991;Gage & Barnard 1996;Wedell 1992;Simmons et al 1993;Oppliger et al 1998;Wedell & Cook 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection

Pitnick

Miller

Reagan

et al. 2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

199

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the in£uence of pre-and post-copulatory sexual selection upon male reproductive traits in a naturally promiscuous species, Drosophila melanogaster. Sexual selection was removed in two replicate populations through enforced monogamous mating with random mate assignment or retained in polyandrous controls. Monogamous mating eliminates all opportunities for mate competition, mate discrimination, sperm competition, cryptic female choice and, hence, sexual con£ict. Levels of divergence between lines in sperm production and male ¢tness traits were quanti¢ed after 38^81 generations of selection. Three a priori predictions were tested: (i) male investment in spermatogenesis will be lower in monogamy-line males due to the absence of sperm competition selection, (ii) due to the evolution of increased male benevolence, the ¢tness of females paired with monogamy-line males will be higher than that of females paired with control-line males, and (iii) monogamy-line males will exhibit decreased competitive reproductive success relative to control-line males. The ¢rst two predictions were supported, whereas the third prediction was not. Monogamy males evolved a smaller body size and the size of their testes and the number of sperm within the testes were disproportionately further reduced. In contrast, the ¢tness of monogamous males (and their mates) was greater when reproducing in a non-competitive context: females mated once with monogamous males produced o¡spring at a faster rate and produced a greater total number of surviving progeny than did females mated to control males. The results indicate that sexual selection favours the production of increased numbers of sperm in D. melanogaster and that sexual selection favours some male traits conferring a direct cost to the fecundity of females.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection

Pitnick

Miller

Reagan

et al. 2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

199

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We should, nevertheless, also point out that in this study we ignored the potential role that sperm displacement may play in affecting the relationship between male mating success and fertilization success. Sperm displacement, wherein offspring of a female mated with two males in succession are largely produced using sperm from the second male, is known to occur in D. melanogaster (Lefevre & Johnson, 1962 ;Prout & Bundgaard, 1977 ;Newport & Gromko, 1984 ;Harshman & Prout, 1994 ;Clark et al, 1995). However, empirically studying the extent to which sperm displacement plays a role in determining reproductive success under typical culture conditions is likely to prove a technically daunting task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Any mating by the painted male in a vial was recorded. Only bouts of copulation lasting more than 5 min were considered to be successful matings, because shorter mating times are not sufficient for significant sperm transfer to occur (Harshman & Prout, 1994). The three different series of vials were set up in order to see whether males eclosing at different times in B-culture vials could be expected to differ in the distribution of mating success, as a consequence of varying sex ratios.…”

Section: (Vi) Male Mating Success Assaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most previous studies on components of male mating success in Drosophila used experimental protocols involving conditions very different from the environment in a typical culture vial. Many studies have used mutant flies (Barker, 1962 ;Prout, 1971 ;Harshman & Prout, 1994) or inbred populations (Parsons, 1964 ;Averhoff & Richardson, 1974 ;Brittnacher, 1981 ;Sharp, 1984 ;Partridge et al, 1985 ;Miller & Hedrick, 1993 ;Hughes, 1995), neither of which are representative of a typical, outbred Drosophila population. Moreover, measurements of components of male mating success have often been made in small mating chambers, under non-competitive conditions, or at densities and sex ratios that have little in common with conditions in culture vials when the population is being maintained on discrete generations with a relatively short generation time such as 10-14 d (Manning, 1961 ;Parsons, 1964 ;Spiess & Langer, 1964 ;Sharp, 1982Sharp, , 1984Partridge et al, 1985 ;Service, 1993 ;Hughes, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Poisson distribution of male mating success in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryVariation among males and females in reproductive success is a major determinant of effective population size. Most studies of male mating success in Drosophila, however, have been done under conditions very different from those in typical cultures. We determined the distribution of male mating success in five laboratory populations of D. melanogaster maintained on a 14 d, discrete generation cycle fairly representative of standard Drosophila cultures. Mating success was measured as the number of matings a male could achieve under conditions closely approximating a regular culture vial of these populations. Preliminary studies determined that most mating in these populations occurred within 14 h of the flies attaining sexual maturity. Consequently, individual virgin males were marked with white paint on their thorax, put into vials with varying numbers of unmarked virgin flies of both sexes, and monitored continuously for matings over a period of up to 14 h. At various times during the assay, virgin males and females were added to these vials in proportions simulating the pattern of eclosion in culture vials. The observed variation in the number of matings per male in the five populations was, by and large, consistent with a Poisson distribution, suggesting that male mating success in short-generation-time, discrete-generation laboratory cultures of D. melanogaster may fulfil a fundamental assumption of the Wright-Fisher model of genetic drift in finite populations.

show abstract

“…In addition to generating competition between the ejaculates of different males 1,2 , multiple mating may allow females to bias sperm use 3,4 .I nDrosophila melanogaster, the last male to inseminate a female sires approximately 80% of subsequent progeny 5 . Both sperm displacement, where resident sperm are removed from storage by the incoming ejaculate of the copulating male 6 , and sperm incapacitation, where incoming seminal fluids supposedly interfere with resident sperm 7 , have been implicated in this pattern of sperm use [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] . But the idea of incapacitation is problematic because there are no known mechanisms by which an individual could damage rival sperm and not their own.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%