Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 121–133 | Cite as

Studies of sperm competition in two species of muroid rodents

  • Donald A. Dewsbury
  • Denis J. Baumgardner
Article

Summary

  1. 1.

    In three experiments on the effects of mating order, wild-type male deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus bairdi were tested in competition with brown recessive, wide-band agouti, and blonde mutant males. Females of the homozygous recessive genotype received two ejaculatory series from a male of each genotype; mating order was varied. There were no significant effects of mating order on litter composition. In a parallel experiment wild-type and albino male prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster, mated for one ejaculation each with albino females. There was a significant advantage with respect to litter composition for the male ejaculating last. Together with data from other species, these results suggest that effects of mating order are highly species-specific and must be evaluated for each species before speculations are made regarding the effects of multiple matings.

     
  2. 2.

    Males of various genotypes differed with respect to differential fertilizing capacity. Wild-type male deer mice outcompeted both brown recessive and wideband agouti males. The combinations of blonde and wild-type deer mice and albino and wild-type prairie voles yielded strain differences in litter composition in one mating order but not in the other. Counts of the numbers of sperm from males of different genotypes in the uteri of females revealed no sigificant strain differences. Thus, strain differences are not simply a function of sperm numbers. 3. Female deer mice mated or exposed to more than one male had a lower probability of pregnancy than those mated for comparable numbers of ejaculations with one male in previous studies. Additional data on pregnancy initiation in females of the brown-recessive genotype mated with one male revealed them to be only slightly less likely to become pregnant than wild-type females. Strain of male had little effect. 4. No significant effects on litter composition were attributable to the length of the delay between matings by successive males. This was established both via correlational analyses of the data from the mating order studies and in an additional experiment in deer mice in which delays of 2 h were imposed between the last ejaculation by the first male and introduction of a second male. 5. Litter composition in deer mice reflects the number of ejaculations attained by each of two males. In one experiment, female deer mice mated first with a blonde male and then with a wild-type male. The blonde male delivered three ejaculations and the wild-type male one ejaculation in one condition and the wild-type male three ejaculations and the blonde male one in the other. Litter composition was significantly affected.

     

Keywords

Sperm Competition Strain Difference Deer Mouse Prairie Vole Mating Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler NT, Zoloth SR (1970) Copulatory behavior can inhibit pregnancy in female rats. Science 168:1480–1482Google Scholar
  2. Allison AJ (1977) Flock mating in sheep. II. Effect of number of ewes per ram on mating behavior and fertility of two-tooth and mixed-age Romney ewes run together. NZ J Agric Res 20:123–128Google Scholar
  3. Baumngardner DJ, Hartung TG, Sawrey DK, Webster DG, Dewsbury DA (1981) Muroid copulatory plugs and female reproductive tracts: A comparative investigation. J Mammal (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Beatty RA (1960) Fertility of mixed semen from different rabbits. J Reprod Fertil 1:52–60Google Scholar
  5. Beatty RA (1970) The genetics of the mammalian gamete. Biol Rev 45:73–119Google Scholar
  6. Beatty RA, Bennett GH, Hall JG, Hancock JL, Steweart DL (1969) An experiment with heterospermic insemination in cattle. J Reprod Fertil 19:491–502Google Scholar
  7. Bernant G (1964) Effects of single and multiple enforced intercopulatory intervals on the sexual behavior of male rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 57:398–403Google Scholar
  8. Bertram BCR (1976) Kin selection in lions and in evolution. In: Bateson PPG, Hinde RA (eds) Growing points in ethology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 281–301Google Scholar
  9. Birdsall DA, Nash D (1973) Occurrence of successful multiple insemination of females in natural populations of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Evolution 27:106–110Google Scholar
  10. Boorman E, Parker GA (1976) Sperm (ejaculate) competition in Drosophila melanogaster, and the reproductive value of females to males in relation to female age and mating status. Ecol Entomol 1:145–155Google Scholar
  11. Bradley EL, Terman CR (1979) Ovulation in Peromyscus maniculatus bairdi under laboratory conditions. J Mammal 60:543–549Google Scholar
  12. Bronson FH, Eleftheriou BE (1963) Influence of strange males on implantation in the deermouse. Gen Comp Endocrinol 3:515–518Google Scholar
  13. Bruce HM (1959) An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature 184:105Google Scholar
  14. Bruce HM (1961) Time relations in the pregnancy-block induced in mice by strange males. J Reprod Fertil 2:138–142Google Scholar
  15. Calhoun JB (1962) The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  16. Chipman RK, Holt JA, Fox KA (1966) Pregnancy failures in laboratory mice after multiple short-term exposure to strange males. Nature 210:653Google Scholar
  17. Clemens LG (1969) Experimental analysis of sexual behavior of the deermouse, Permyscus maniculatus gambeli. Behaviour 34:267–285Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawson WD, Smith MH, Carmon JL (1969) A third independent occurrence of the brown mutant in Peromyscus. J Hered 60:286–288Google Scholar
  20. Dewsbury DA (1975) A diallel cross analysis of genetic determinants of copulatory behavior in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 88:713–722Google Scholar
  21. Dewsbury DA (1979a) Copulatory behavior of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): I. Normative data, subspecific differences, and effects of cross-fostering. J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:151–160Google Scholar
  22. Dewsbury DA (1979b) Copulatory behavior of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): II. A study of some factors regulating the fine structure of behavior. J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:161–177Google Scholar
  23. Dewsbury DA (1979c) Copulatory behavior of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): III. Effects on pregnancy initiation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:178–188Google Scholar
  24. Dewsbury DA (1979d) Factor analyses of measures of copulatory behavior in three species of muroid rodents. J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:868–878Google Scholar
  25. Dunn LC (1927) Selective fertilization in fowls. Poul Sci 6:210–214Google Scholar
  26. Dziuk PJ (1965) Double mating of rabbits to determine capacitation time. J Reprod Fertil 10:389–395Google Scholar
  27. Edmonds S, Zoloth SR Adler NT (1972) Storage of copulatory stimulation in the female rat. Physiol Behav 8:161–164Google Scholar
  28. Edwards RG (1955) Selective fertilization following the use of sperm mixtures in the mouse. Nature 175:215–216Google Scholar
  29. Fitch HS (1957) Aspects of reproduction and development in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Univ Kansas Publ Mus Nat Hist 10:129–161Google Scholar
  30. Foltz DW (1981) Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. Am Nat 117:665–675Google Scholar
  31. Getz LL (1978) Speculation on social structure and population cycles of microtine rodents. Biologist 60:134–147Google Scholar
  32. Gray GD, Dewsbury DA (1973) A quantitative description of copulatory behavior in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Brain Behav Evol 8:437–452Google Scholar
  33. Gwynne DT (1981) Male mating effort, confidence of paternity and insect sperm competition. In: Smith RL (ed), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Hartung TG, Dewsbury DA (1978) A comparative analysis of copulatory plugs in muroid rodents and their relationship to copulatory behavior. J Mammal 59:717–723Google Scholar
  35. Holmes HB (1974) Patterns of sperm competition in Nasonia vitripennis. Can J Genet Cytol 16:789–795Google Scholar
  36. King HB (1929) Selective fertilization in the rat. Wilhelm Roux' Arch Entwicklungsmech Org 116:202–219Google Scholar
  37. Lanier DL, Estep DO, Dewsbury DA (1979) Role of prolonged copulatory behavior in facilitating reproductive success in a competitive mating situation in laboratory rats J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:781–792Google Scholar
  38. Levine L (1967) Sexual selection in mice. IV. Experimental demonstration of selective fertilization. Am Nat 101:289–294Google Scholar
  39. Lloyd JE (1979) Mating behavior and natural selection. Fla Entomol 62:17–34Google Scholar
  40. MacLeod J (1973) The parameters of male fertility. Hosp Pract 8:43–52Google Scholar
  41. Martan J, Shepherd BA (1976) The role of the copulatory plug in reproduction of the guinea pig. J Exp Zool 196:79–84Google Scholar
  42. Martin PA, Dziuk PJ (1977) Assessment of relative fertility of males (cockerels and boars) by competitive mating. J Reprod Fertil 49:323–329Google Scholar
  43. Martin PA, Reimers TJ, Lodge JR, Dziuk PJ (1974) The effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from two males on proportions of offspring. J Reprod Fertil 39:251–258Google Scholar
  44. McGill TE (1962) Sexual behavior in three inbred strains of mice. Behaviour 19:341–350Google Scholar
  45. Merritt RB, Wu BJ (1975) On the quantification of promiscuity (or Promyscus maniculatus?). Evolution 29:575–578Google Scholar
  46. Mosig DW, Dewsbury DA (1970) Plug fate in the copulatory behavior of male rats. Psychon Sci 20:315–316Google Scholar
  47. Oglesby JM, Lanier DL, Dewsbury DA (1981) The role of prolonged copulatory behavior in facilitating reproductive success in male Syrian golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) in a competitive mating situation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:47–54Google Scholar
  48. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567Google Scholar
  49. Prout T, Bundegaard J (1977) The population genetics of sperm displacement. Genetics 85:95–124Google Scholar
  50. Richmond M, Conaway CH (1969a) Induced ovulation and oestrus in Microtus ochrogaster. Reprod Fertil Suppl 6:357–376Google Scholar
  51. Richmond M, Conaway CH (1969b) Management, breeding, and reproductive performance of the vole, Microtus ochrogaster, in a laboratory colony. Lab Anim Care 19:80–87Google Scholar
  52. Robbins RJ (1979) “Blonde” mutants. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  53. Robitaille JA, Bovet J (1976) Field observations on the social behaviour of the Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout). Biol Behav 1:289–308Google Scholar
  54. Sakaluk SK, Cade WH (1980) Female mating frequency and progeny production in singly and doubly mated house and field crickets. Can J Zool 58:404–411Google Scholar
  55. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Sims SR (1979) Aspects of mating frequency and reproductive maturity in Papilio zelicaon. Am Midl Nat 102:36–50Google Scholar
  57. Smith RL (1979) Repeated copulation and sperm precedence: Paternity assurance for a male brooding water bug. Science 205:1029–1031Google Scholar
  58. Sumption LJ, Adams JC (1961) Multiple sire mating in swine III. Factors influencing multiple paternity. J Hered 52:214–218Google Scholar
  59. Telle HJ (1966) Contribution to the knowledge of behavioral patterns in two species of rats, Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. Z Angew Zool 53:129–196 (Technical translation 1608 (VN Nekrassoff, trans) National Research Council of Canada 1972)Google Scholar
  60. Thomas JA, Birney EC (1979) Parental care and mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:171–186Google Scholar
  61. Tutin CEG (1979) Mating patterns and reproductive strategies in a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6:29–38Google Scholar
  62. Ventura WF, Freund M (1973) Evidence for a new class of uterine stimulants in rats semen and male accessory gland secretions. J Reprod Fertil 33:507–511Google Scholar
  63. Voss R (1979) Male accessory glands and the evolution of copulatory plugs in rodents. Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich 689:1–27Google Scholar
  64. Walker WF (1980) Sperm utilization strategies in nonsocial insects. Am Nat 115:780–799Google Scholar
  65. Wilkes A (1966) Sperm utilization following multiple insemination in the wasp Dahlbominus fuscipennis. Can J Genet Cytol 8:451–461Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald A. Dewsbury
    • 1
  • Denis J. Baumgardner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations