Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The Evolution of Continuous Variation in Ejaculate Expenditure Strategy

Samuel J. Tazzyman, Tommaso Pizzari, Robert M. Seymour and Andrew Pomiankowski
The American Naturalist
Vol. 174, No. 3 (September 2009), pp. E71-E82
DOI: 10.1086/603612
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/603612
Page Count: 12
Subjects: Biological Sciences Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Find more content in these subjects: Biological Sciences Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Abstract

Abstract: Sperm competition theory has largely focused on the evolution of ejaculate expenditure strategies across different species or populations or across discrete mating roles on which sperm competition operates differentially. Few studies have considered the extent to which male ejaculate expenditure is influenced by continuous change in male phenotype within a population. Here we model how optimal ejaculate expenditure responds to two sources of continuous variation: (1) the quantity of resources allocated by a male to mating within a breeding season and (2) the resource cost of obtaining a mate. We find that variation in the amount of resources available for mating does not alone produce selection for differing ejaculate investment strategies. However, when there is variation in the cost of obtaining a mate, males with a lower cost will be selected to invest fewer sperm per mating than males whose cost is higher. Any parameter decreasing this cost will also select for decreased ejaculate investment per mating. These results provide a novel insight into the evolution of male ejaculate expenditure strategies, revealing that individual constraints on the ability to secure matings can lead to variation in ejaculate expenditure even when the risk of sperm competition is the same for all males.

Notes and References

This item contains 46 references.

Literature Cited
  • ['Alcock, J. 1994. Postinsemination associations between males and females in insects: the mate‐guarding hypothesis. Annual Review of Entomology 39:1–21.']
  • ['Alonzo, S. H., and R. R. Warner. 1999. A trade‐off generated by sexual conflict: Mediterranean wrasse males refuse present mates to increase future success. Behavioral Ecology 10:105–111.']
  • ['Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.']
  • ['Andersson, M., and Y. Iwasa. 1996. Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11:A53–A58.']
  • ['Ball, M. A., and G. A. Parker. 2000. Sperm competition games: a comparison of loaded raffle models and their biological implications. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:487–506.']
  • ['Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–136.']
  • ['Clutton‐Brock, T. H., and G. A. Parker. 1995. Punishment in animal societies. Nature 373:209–216.']
  • ['Cook, P. A., and N. Wedell. 1999. Non‐fertile sperm delay female remating. Nature 397:486.']
  • ['Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead. 2007. Changes in sperm quality and numbers in response to experimental manipulation of male social status and female attractiveness. American Naturalist 170:758–770.']
  • ['Froman, D. P., T. Pizzari, A. J. Feltmann, H. Castillo‐Juarez, and T. R. Birkhead. 2002. Sperm mobility: mechanisms of fertilizing efficiency, genetic variation and phenotypic relationship with male status in the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:607–612.']
  • ['Gage, M. J. G., and P. A. Cook. 1994. Sperm size or numbers? effects of nutritional stress upon eupyrene and apyrene sperm production strategies in the moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae). Functional Ecology 8:594–599.']
  • ['Gage, M. J. G., and E. H. Morrow. 2003. Experimental evidence for the evolution of numerous, tiny sperm via sperm competition. Current Biology 13:754–757.']
  • ['Gavrilets, S., and T. I. Hayashi. 2006. The dynamics of two‐ and three‐way sexual conflicts over mating. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361:345–354.']
  • ['Graves, B. M., and D. Duvall. 1995. Effects of sexually transmitted diseases on heritable variation in sexually selected systems. Animal Behaviour 50:1129–1131.']
  • ['Jennions, M. D., and M. Petrie. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? a review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 75:21–64.']
  • ['Johnstone, R. A., and L. Keller. 2000. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. American Naturalist 156:368–377.']
  • ['Lessells, C. M. 2005. Why are males bad for females? models for the evolution of damaging male mating behavior. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S46–S63.']
  • ['Løvlie, H., C. K. Cornwallis, and T. Pizzari. 2005. Male mounting alone reduces female promiscuity in the fowl. Current Biology 15:1222–1227.']
  • ['Malcolm, M. A., and R. B. Simpson. 1975. Local versus global strategies for adaptive quadrature. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 1:129–146.']
  • ['Martin, P. A., T. J. Reimers, J. R. Lodge, and P. J. Dziuk. 1974. The effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from two males on proportions of offspring. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 39:251–258.']
  • ['Maynard Smith, J. 1974. Theory of games and evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 47:209–221.']
  • ['———. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.']
  • ['Mesterton‐Gibbons, M. 1999a. On sperm competition games: incomplete fertilization risk and the equity paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:269–274.']
  • ['———. 1999b. On sperm competition games: raffles and roles revisited. Journal of Mathematical Biology 39:91–108.']
  • ['Moore, A. J., and T. Pizzari. 2005. Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. American Naturalist 165(suppl.):S88–S97.']
  • ['Moreira, P. L., V. L. Nunes, J. Martín, and O. S. Paulo. 2007. Copulatory plugs do not assure high first male fertilisation success: sperm displacement in a lizard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:281–288.']
  • ['Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 45:525–567.']
  • ['———. 1982. Why are there so many tiny sperm? sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 96:281–294.']
  • ['———. 1990a. Sperm competition games: raffles and roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 242:120–126.']
  • ['———. 1990b. Sperm competition games: sneaks and extra‐pair copulations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 242:127–133.']
  • ['———. 1998. Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. Pages 3–54 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.']
  • ['Parker, G. A., and M. A. Ball. 2005. Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biology Letters 1:235–238.']
  • ['Parker, G. A., M. A. Ball, P. Stockley, and M. J. G. Gage. 1996. Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 263:1291–1297.']
  • ['Pianka, E. R., and W. S. Parker. 1975. Age‐specific reproductive tactics. American Naturalist 109:453–464.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., and K. R. Foster. 2008. Sperm sociality: cooperation, altruism, and spite. PLoS Biology 6:925–931.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., and G. A. Parker. 2009. Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. Pages 207–245 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, London.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., and R. R. Snook. 2004. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: measuring antagonistic coevolution. Evolution 58:1389–1393.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., C. K. Cornwallis, and D. P. Froman. 2007. Social competitiveness associated with rapid fluctuations in sperm quality in male fowl. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:853–860.']
  • ['Ram, K. R., and M. F. Wolfner. 2007. Sustained post‐mating response in Drosophila melanogaster requires multiple seminal fluid proteins. PLoS Genetics 3:2428–2438.']
  • ['Rudolfsen, G., L. Figenschou, I. Folstad, H. Tveiten, and M. Figenschou. 2006. Rapid adjustments of sperm characteristics in relation to social status. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:325–332.']
  • ['Rudolfsen, G., R. Muller, D. Urbach, and C. Wedekind. 2008. Predicting the mating system from phenotypic correlations between life‐history and sperm quality traits in the Alpine whitefish Coregonus zugensis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:561–567.']
  • ['Shuster, S. M., and M. J. Wade. 2003. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.']
  • ['Simmons, L. W. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.']
  • ['Warner, R. R., D. Y. Shapiro, A. Marcanato, and C. W. Petersen. 1995. Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 262:135–139.']
  • ['Wedell, N., M. J. G. Gage, and G. A. Parker. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm‐limited females. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:313–320.']
  • ['Williams, P. D., T. Day, and E. Cameron. 2005. The evolution of sperm‐allocation strategies and the degree of sperm competition. Evolution 59:492–499.']