Naturwissenschaften

, 98:837 | Cite as

Parker’s sneak-guard model revisited: why do reproductively parasitic males heavily invest in testes?

  • Kazutaka Ota
  • Masanori Kohda
  • Michio Hori
  • Tetsu Sato
Original Paper

Abstract

Alternative reproductive tactics are widespread in males and may cause intraspecific differences in testes investment. Parker’s sneak-guard model predicts that sneaker males, who mate under sperm competition risk, invest in testes relatively more than bourgeois conspecifics that have lower risk. Given that sneakers are much smaller than bourgeois males, sneakers may increase testes investment to overcome their limited sperm productivity because of their small body sizes. In this study, we examined the mechanism that mediates differential testes investment across tactics in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus. In the Rumonge population of Burundi, bourgeois males are small compared with those in other populations and have a body size close to sneaky dwarf males. Therefore, if differences in relative testis investment depend on sperm competition, the rank order of relative testis investment should be dwarf males > bourgeois males in Rumonge = bourgeois males in the other populations. If differences in relative testis investment depend on body size, the rank order of relative testes investment should be dwarf males > bourgeois males in Rumonge > bourgeois males in the other populations. Comparisons of relative testis investment among the three male groups supported the role of sperm competition, as predicted by the sneak-guard model. Nevertheless, the effects of absolute body size on testes investment should be considered to understand the mechanisms underlying intraspecific variation in testes investment caused by alternative reproductive tactics.

Keywords

Sperm competition Alternative reproductive tactics Body size Lamprologus callipterus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Masta Mukwaya Gashagaza, Nshombo Muderwa, Harris Philli, Danny Sinyinza and other colleagues of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Burundi and Republic of Zambia for their kind collaboration and support for the entire research. We are also very grateful to the Japanese Research Team for sampling and practical assistance, Yasuoki Takami (Kobe University), Michael Taborsky (University of Bern) and three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and the editor-in-cheif Sven Thatje for his advice. The research presented here was conducted under permits for fish research in Lake Tanganyika from CRSN, the Burundi government, and the Zambian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and complies with the laws of each country and the guidelines of the Animal Care and Use Committee of Osaka City University, Kyoto University, and the Japan Ethological Society. Funding was provided from a Grant-in-Aid for Research Fellowship from JSPS for Young Scientists and an Overseas Scientific Research grant (MEXT).

Supplementary material

114_2011_834_MOESM1_ESM.doc (174 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 173 kb)
114_2011_834_MOESM2_ESM.doc (40 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 39 kb)

References

  1. Avise JC, Jones AG, Walker D, DeWoody JA (2002) Genetic mating systems and reproductive natural histories of fishes: lessons for ecology and evolution. Annu Rev Genet 36:19–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awata S, Takeyama T, Makino Y, Kitamura Y, Kohda M (2008) Cooperatively breeding cichlid fish adjust their testis size but not sperm traits in relation to sperm competition risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1701–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billard R (1986) Spermatogenesis and spermatology of some teleost fish species. Reprod Nutr Dev 26:877–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne PG, Roberts JD, Simmons LW (2002) Sperm competition selects for increased testes mass in Australian frogs. J Evol Biol 15:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foote CJ, Brown GS, Wood CC (1997) Spawning success of males using alternative mating tactics in sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1785–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gage MJG (1998) Influence of sex, size, and symmetry on ejaculate expenditure in a moth. Behav Ecol 9:592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gage AR, Barnard CJ (1996) Male crickets increase sperm number in relation to competition and female size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Immler S, Mazzoldi C, Rasotto MB (2004) From sneaker to parental male: change of reproductive traits in the black goby, Gobius niger (Teleostei, Gobiidae). J Exp Zool 301A:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leach B, Montgomerie R (2000) Sperm characteristics associated with defferent male reproductive tactics in bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maan M, Taborsky M (2008) Sexual conflict over breeding substrate causes female expulsion and offspring loss in a cichlid fish. Behav Ecol 19:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meidl P (1999) Microsatellite analysis of alternative mating tactics in Lamprologus callipterus. M.Sc. thesis, University of Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakai K, Yanagisawa Y, Sato T, Niimura Y, Gashagaza MM (1990) Lunar synchronization of spawning in cichlid fishes of tribe Lamprologini in Lake Tanganyika. J Fish Biol 37:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ota K, Kohda M, Sato T (2010a) Why are reproductively parasitic fish males so small?—influence of tactic-specific selection. Naturwissenschaften 97:1113–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ota K, Kohda M, Sato T (2010b) Unusual allometry for sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid where males are extremely larger than females. J Biosci 35:257–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parker GA (1990) Sperm competition games: sneaks and extra-pair copulations. Proc R Soc Lond B 242:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker GA, Ball MA, Stockley P, Gage MJG (1997) Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1793–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitcher TE, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2005) Sperm competition and the evolution of testis size in birds. J Evol Biol 18:557–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramm SA, Parker GA, Stockley P (2005) Sperm competition and the evolution of male reproductive anatomy in rodents. Proc R Soc B 272:949–955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichard M, Smith C, Jordan WC (2004) Genetic evidence reveals density-dependent mediated success of alternative mating behaviours in the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Mol Ecol 13:1569–1578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rios-Cardenas O, Webster MS (2008) A molecular genetic examination of the mating system of pumpkinseed sunfish reveals high pay-offs for specialized sneakers. Mol Ecol 17:2310–2320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowe M, Pruett-Jones S (2011) Sperm competition selects for sperm quantity and quality in the Australian Maluridae. PLoS ONE 6:e15720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sato T (1994) Active accumulation of spawning substrate: a determinant of extreme polygyny in a shell-brooding cichlid. Anim Behav 48:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sato T, Gashagaza MM (1997) Shell-brooding cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika: their habitats and mating systems. In: Kawanabe H, Hori M, Nagoshi M (eds) Fish communities in Lake Tanganyika. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto, pp 219–238Google Scholar
  28. Sato T, Hirose M, Taborsky M, Kimura S (2004) Size-dependent male alternative reproductive tactics in the shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus in Lake Tanganyika. Ethology 110:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schütz D, Taborsky M (2005) The influence of sexual selection and ecological constraints on an extreme sexual size dimorphism in a cichlid. Anim Behav 70:539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schütz D, Parker GA, Taborsky M, Sato T (2006) An optimality approach to male and female body sizes in an extremely sizedimorphic cichlid fish. Evol Ecol Res 8:1–16Google Scholar
  31. Schütz D, Pachler G, Ripmeester E, Goffinet O, Taborsky M (2010) Reproductive investment of giants and dwarfs: specialized tactics in a cichlid fish with alternative male morphs. Fuct Ecol 24:131–140Google Scholar
  32. Shapiro DY, Marconato A, Yoshikawa T (1994) Sperm economy in a coral reef fish, Thalassoma bifasciatum. Ecology 75:1334–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmons LW, Tomkins JL, Hunt J (1999) Sperm competition games played by dimorphic male beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simmons LW, Emlen DJ, Tomkins JL (2007) Sperm competition games between sneaks and guards: a comparative analysis using dimorphic male beetles. Evolution 61:2684–2692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taborsky M (1994) Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Adv Study Behav 23:1–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taborsky M (1997) Bourgeois and parasitic tactics: do we need collective, functional terms for alternative reproductive behaviours? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:361–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taborsky M (1998) Sperm competition in fish: ‘bourgeois’ males and parasitic spawning. Trend Ecol Evol 13:222–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taborsky M (2001) The evolution of bourgeois, parasitic, and cooperative reproductive behaviors in fishes. J Hered 92:100–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taborsky M (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics in fish. In: Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 251–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomaz D, Bell E, Burke T (1997) Alternative reproductive tactics in Atlantic salmon: factors affecting mature parr success. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomkins JL, Simmons LW (2002) Measuring relative investment: a case study of testes investment in species with alternative male reproductive tactics. Anim Behav 63:1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Uglem I, Galloway TF, Rosenquvist G, Folstad I (2001) Male dimorphism, sperm traits and immunology in the corkwing wrasse (Symphodus melops L.). Behav Ecol Sciobiol 50:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazutaka Ota
    • 1
  • Masanori Kohda
    • 2
  • Michio Hori
    • 1
  • Tetsu Sato
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biology and GeosciencesOsaka City UniversityOsakaJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of Tourism and Environmental StudiesNagano UniversityNaganoJapan

Personalised recommendations