Marine Biology

, Volume 147, Issue 1, pp 235–242

Evolution of egg size and fertilisation efficiency in sea stars: large eggs are not fertilised more readily than small eggs in the genus Patiriella (Echinodermata: Asteroidea)

Research Article

Abstract

Fertilisation kinetics theory suggests that, when sperm are limiting, the larger eggs of broadcast-spawning marine organisms ought to be fertilised more frequently than smaller eggs, because they provide a bigger target for searching sperm. Whilst this effect has been demonstrated within species, it is not known if this pattern holds among species. We tested whether a large difference in egg size between congeneric seastars with contrasting planktotrophic and lecithotrophic modes of development results in differences in the likelihood of eggs being fertilised in sperm-limiting situations. Measurement of egg sizes and sperm swimming speeds led to the prediction that the sperm–egg collision rate constant for Patiriella calcar (420-µm-diameter egg) should be nine times greater than for P. regularis (140-µm-diameter egg). Although the eggs of P. calcar should be fertilised at greater rates in low sperm concentrations, they were not. When gametes were allowed to mix for 10 s, the hypothesis that P. calcar eggs required less sperm than P. regularis to ensure 50% of eggs were fertilised was rejected. When gametes were mixed for 5 min, P. regularis eggs were more frequently fertilised, but the difference was not statistically significant. We conclude there must be a difference between these species in the likelihood that when a sperm finds a conspecific egg it can successfully fertilise. This apparent uncoupling of egg size and likelihood of fertilisation suggests that fertilisation is not a major constraint on the evolution of egg size in these seastars.

References

  1. Bolton TF, Thomas FIM, Leonard CN (2000) Maternal energy investment in eggs and jelly coats surrounding eggs of the echinoid Arbacia punctulata. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 199:1–5Google Scholar
  2. Burgett JM (1982) The feeding ecology of Patiriella regularis (Verrill) in the rocky intertidal. M.Sc. thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne M (1992) Reproduction of sympatric populations of Patiriella gunnii, P. calcar and P. exigua in New South Wales, asterinid seastars with direct development. Mar Biol 114:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne M, Cerra A, Hart M, Smith (1999) Life history diversity and molecular phylogeny in the Australian sea star genus Patiriella . In: Ponder W, Lunney D (eds) The other 99%: the conservation and biodiversity of invertebrates. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney pp188–196Google Scholar
  5. Chia F-S, Bickell LR (1983) Echinodermata. In: Adiyodi KG, Adiyodi RG (eds) Reproductive biology of invertebrates, vol II. Spermatogenesis and sperm function. Wiley, New York, pp 545–620Google Scholar
  6. Farley GS (2002) Helical nature of sperm swimming affects the fit of fertilization-kinetics models to empirical data. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 203:51–57Google Scholar
  7. Farley GS, Levitan DR (2001) The role of jelly coats in sperm–egg encounters, fertilization success, and selection on egg size in broadcast spawners. Am Nat 157:626–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franke ES, Babcock RC, Styan CA (2002) Sexual conflict and polyspermy under sperm-limited conditions: in situ evidence from field simulations with the free-spawning marine echinoid Evechinus chloroticus. Am Nat 160:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hart MW, Byrne M, Smith MJ (1997) Molecular phylogenetic analysis of life-history evolution in asterinid starfish. Evolution 51:1848–1861Google Scholar
  10. Hart MW, Johnson SL, Addison JA, Byrne M (2004) Strong character incongruence between life history traits and nucleotides in asterinid sea star phylogeny. Invertbr Biol 123:343–356Google Scholar
  11. Jantzen TM, de Nys R, Havenhand JN (2001) Fertilization success and the effects of sperm chemoattractants on effective egg size in marine invertebrates. Mar Biol 138:1153–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kupriyanova E, Havenhand JN (2001) Variation in sperm swimming behaviour and its effect on fertilization success in the serpulid polychaete Galeolaria caespitosa. Invertbr Reprod Dev 41:21–26Google Scholar
  13. Levitan DR (1993) The importance of sperm limitation to the evolution of egg size in marine invertebrates. Am Nat 141:517–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levitan DR (1995) The ecology of fertilization in free-spawning invertebrates. In: McEdward LR (ed) Ecology of marine invertebrate larvae. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., USA, pp 123–156Google Scholar
  15. Levitan DR (1996a) Effects of gamete traits on fertilization in the sea and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Nature 382:153–155Google Scholar
  16. Levitan DR (1996b) Predicting optimal and unique egg sizes in free-spawning marine invertebrates. Am Nat 148:174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitan DR (1998) Does Bateman’s principle apply to broadcast-spawning organisms? Egg traits influence in situ fertilization rates among congeneric sea urchins. Evolution 52:1043–1056Google Scholar
  18. Levitan DR (2000) Optimal egg size in marine invertebrates: theory and phylogenetic analysis of the critical relationship between egg size and development time in echinoids. Am Nat 156:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitan DR (2002) Density-dependent selection on gamete traits in three congeneric sea urchins. Ecology 83:464–479Google Scholar
  20. Levitan DR, Irvine SD (2001) Fertilization selection on egg and jelly-coat size in the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus. Evolution 55:2479–2483Google Scholar
  21. Levitan DR, Sewell MA, Chia F-S (1991) Kinetics of fertilization in the sea urchin Strongylocentotus franciscanus: interaction of gamete dilution, age, and contact time. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 181:371–378Google Scholar
  22. Marshall DJ, Keough MJ (2003) Sources of variation in larval quality for free-spawning marine invertebrates: egg size and the local sperm environment. Invertbr Reprod Dev 44:63–70Google Scholar
  23. Marshall DJ, Styan CA, Keough MJ (2000) Intraspecific co-variation between egg and body size affects fertilisation kinetics of free-spawning marine invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 195:305–309Google Scholar
  24. Marshall DJ, Styan CA, Keough MJ (2002) Sperm environment affects larval characteristics of broadcast spawning marine invertebrates. Ecol Lett 5:173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCartney MA, Lessios HA (2002) Quantitative analysis of gametic incompatibility between closely related species of neotropical sea urchins. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 202:166–181Google Scholar
  26. Metz EC, Palumbi SR (1996) Positive selection and sequence rearrangements generate extensive polymorphism in the gamete recognition protein bindin. Mol Biol Evol 13:397–407Google Scholar
  27. Miller RL (1985) Demonstration of sperm chemotaxis in Echinodermata: Asteroidea, Holothuroidea, Ophiuroidea. J Exp Zool 234:385–414Google Scholar
  28. Palumbi S (1999) All males are not created equal: fertility differences depend on gamete recognition polymorphisms in sea urchins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:12632–12637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Podolsky RD (2001) Evolution of egg target size: an analysis of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 55:2470–2478Google Scholar
  30. Podolsky RD (2002) Fertilization ecology of egg coats: physical versus chemical contributions to fertilization success of free-spawned eggs. J Exp Biol 205:1657–1668Google Scholar
  31. Presley R, Barker PF (1970) Kinetics of fertilization in the sea urchin: a comparison of methods. J Exp Biol 52:455–468Google Scholar
  32. Stevenson JP (1994) A possible modification of the distribution of the intertidal seastar Patiriella exigua (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) by Patiriella calcar (Lamarck). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 155:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Styan CA (1998) Polyspermy, egg size, and the fertilization kinetics of free-spawning marine invertebrates. Am Nat 152:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Styan CA, Butler AJ (2000) Fitting fertilisation kinetics models for free-spawning marine invertebrates. Mar Biol 137:943–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swallow JG, Wilkinson GS (2002) The long and the short of sperm polymorphisms in insects. Biol Rev 77:153–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swanson WJ, Vacquier VD (2002) Reproductive protein evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Vacquier VD, Payne JE (1973) Methods for quantitating sea urchin sperm–egg binding. Exp Cell Res 82:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vance RR (1973) On reproductive strategies in marine bottom invertebrates. Am Nat 107:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vogel H, Czihak G, Chang P, Wolf W (1982) Fertilization kinetics of sea urchin eggs. Math Biosci 58:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wray GA (1996) Parallel evolution of nonfeeding larvae in echinoids. Syst Biol 45:308–322Google Scholar
  42. Zigler KS, Raff EC, Popodi E, Raff RA, Lessios HA (2003) Adaptive evolution of bindin in the genus Heliocidaris is correlated with the shift to direct development. Evolution 57:2293–2302Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal CitiesUniversity of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and HistologyUniversity of SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Leigh Marine LaboratoryUniversity of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations