Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 153, Issue 4, pp 599–604 | Cite as

Sex adjustments are not functionally costly in simultaneous hermaphrodites

  • M. C. Lorenzi
  • D. Schleicherova
  • G. Sella
Research Article

Abstract

Because of their double sex functions, hermaphrodites are selected to optimize their investment in the two sex functions. Sex allocation (SA) theory predicts that, in promiscuous mating conditions, simultaneous hermaphrodites should adjust their reproductive investment so as to invest an amount of resources into the male relatively larger than that invested into the female function. In contrast, in monogamy, individuals should invest relatively larger amount of resources into the female function at the expenses of the male function. In the study of SA patterns of simultaneous hermaphrodites little attention has been paid to allocate adjustments costs, which may play an important role in determining variations in SA pattern among species. Indeed, the costs paid for such adjustments may constrain sex investment resulting in suboptimal allocation. We evaluated the costs of SA adjustments on individual fitness in each sexual function in the simultaneous, outcrossing hermaphrodite Ophryotrocha diadema. Following a crossover design, we compared the reproductive success in paternal and maternal offspring of focal hermaphrodites, which were put in replicated monogamous and promiscuous regimes. We document that those hermaphrodites that switched mating regimes and altered their sex investment accordingly did not entail large short-term fitness costs in any sexual function compared to those that were in stable mating regimes. Indeed, individuals changed their sex investment quickly and appropriately to current mating conditions. Hermaphrodites, which had to adjust their SA, did not decrease their maternal or paternal reproductive output with respect to those which did not change their SA. Time needed to shift resources from one to the other sex function is 5 days (the time interval between successive egg layings is of 3 days) indicating that selective pressures for SA adjustments may favour great plasticity and quick adjustments of sex investments in simultaneous hermaphrodites.

Keywords

Male Reproductive Success Female Function Simultaneous Hermaphrodite Mating Regime Female Allocation 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge that this paper stemmed from fruitful discussions with Lucas Schärer and thank him as well as two anonymous referees who made useful comments to a previous version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Åkesson B (1976) Morphology and life cycle of Ophryotrocha diadema, a new polychaete species from California. Ophelia 15:25–35Google Scholar
  2. Åkesson B (1982) A life table study on three genetic strains of Ophryotrocha diadema (Polychaeta, Dorvilleidae). Int J Invertebr Reprod 5:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeza JA (2007) Male mating opportunities affect sex allocation in a protrandric-simultaneous hermaphroditic shrimp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berglund A (1986) Sex change by a polychaete: effects of social and reproductive costs. Ecology 67:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnov EL (1979) Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:2480–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 355 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Iwasa Y (1991) Sex change evolution and cost of reproduction. Behav Ecol 2:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoffman SG, Schildhauer MP, Warner RR (1985) The costs of changing sex and the ontogeny of males under contest competition for mates. Evolution 39:915–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lorenzi MC, Sella G (2000) Is individual recognition involved in the maintenance of pair bonds in Ophryotrocha diadema (Dorvilleidae, Polychaeta)? Ethol Ecol Evol 12:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lorenzi MC, Schleicherova D, Sella G, Ramella L (2005) Outcrossing hermaphroditic polychaete worms adjust their sex allocation to social conditions. J Evol Biol 18:1341–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorenzi MC, Schleicherová D, Sella G (2006) Life history and sex allocation in the simultaneously hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema: the role of sperm competition. Integr Comp Biol 46:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munday PL, Molony BV (2002) The energetic cost of protogynous versus protandrous sex change in the bi-directional sex-changing fish Gobiodon histrio. Mar Biol 141:1011–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Munday PL, Buston PM, Warner RR (2006a) Diversity and flexibility of sex-change strategies in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 21:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Munday PL, White JW, Warner RR (2006b) A social basis for the development of primary males in a sex-changing fish. Proc R Soc Biol Sci 273:2845–2851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pfannenstiel HD, Grunig C (1982) Yolk formation in an annelid (Ophryotrocha puerilis). Tissue Cell 14:669–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Premoli MC, Sella G (1995) Sex economy in benthic polychaetes. Ethol Ecol Evol 7:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schärer L, Sandner P, Michiels NK (2005) Trade-off between male and female allocation in the simultaneously hermaphroditic flatworm Macrostomum sp. J Evol Biol 18:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schleicherová D, Lorenzi MC, Sella G (2006) How outcrossing hermaphrodites sense the presence of conspecifics and suppress female allocation. Behav Ecol 17:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sella G (1985) Reciprocal egg trading and brood care in a hermaphroditic polychaete worm. Anim Behav 33:938–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sella G (1988) Reciprocation, reproductive success and safeguards against cheating in the mating system of a hermaphroditic polychaete worm, Ophryotrocha diadema. Biol Bull 175:212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sella G (1990) Sex allocation in the simultaneous hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema. Ecology 71:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sella G (1991) Evolution of biparental care in the hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema. Evolution 45:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sella G, Marzona M (1983) Inheritance, maternal influence and biochemical analysis of an egg color polymorphism in Ophryotrocha diadema. Experientia 39:97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sella G, Lorenzi MC (2000) Partner fidelity and egg reciprocation in the simultaneously hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema. Behav Ecol 1:260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sella G, Lorenzi MC (2003) Increased sperm allocation delays body growth in a protandrous simultaneous hermaphrodite. Biol J Linn Soc 78:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. St. Mary CM (1997) Sequential patterns of sex allocation in simultaneous hermaphrodites: do we need models that specifically incorporate this complexity? Am Nat 150:73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal and Human BiologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations