You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Biases in Sperm Use in the Mallard: No Evidence for Selection by Females Based on Sperm Genotype
Emma J. A. Cunningham and Kimberly M. Cheng
Proceedings: Biological Sciences
Vol. 266, No. 1422 (May 7, 1999), pp. 905-910
Published by: Royal Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/51468
Page Count: 6
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
If we are to understand fully the factors influencing fertilization success, it is essential to untangle male and female effects on sperm use. In many species, differences in fertilizing ability have been found between males or male genotypes, but the impact of female effects is less clear and may vary between taxa. Here, we examine sperm use in the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), a species of bird in which forced copulation forms a major component of the mating system, to investigate whether there is any evidence for post-insemination female choice or rejection of particular sperm genotypes. Current models of sperm use in birds suggest observed patterns of paternity are a result of passive sperm loss from the reproductive tract and the relative timing of inseminations. Although this type of model successfully predicted average values of last male precedence observed in this species, there was considerable variation between females in their pattern of sperm use, with a tendency for females to use sperm of a single genotype. However, females did not consistently prefer one genotype over another in repeated inseminations with identical sperm mixtures, suggesting that post-insemination female preference based on sperm genotype did not account for this variation.
Proceedings: Biological Sciences © 1999 Royal Society