Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 153, Issue 5, pp 891–897 | Cite as

Multiple mating affects offspring size in the opisthobranch Chelidonura sandrana

  • Dennis Sprenger
  • Nils Anthes
  • Nico K. Michiels
Research Article

Abstract

Offspring size can have pervasive effects throughout the life history stages of many marine invertebrates. Although maternal offspring investment is largely determined by the environmental conditions experienced by the mother, egg size might additionally vary in response to the number and quality of previous mating partners. Positive effects of mating multiply with several different males (polyandry) have been confirmed for a variety of species, whereas such investigations are lacking for marine invertebrates. Here we differentiated between the effects of ejaculate amount (repeatedly mated) and ejaculate diversity (polyandry) on maternal offspring investment in the simultaneously hermaphroditic sea slug Chelidonura sandrana. We found that focal “females” mated with four different “males” produced significantly larger egg capsules and larger veligers, while focal “females” mated four times with the same “male” suffered from reduced mid-term fecundity. We found no effect of veliger size on veliger survival. Our results show that female mating patterns are an important addition to understanding the variation in offspring size in internally fertilizing marine invertebrates.

Keywords

Marine Invertebrate Life History Stage Male Copulatory Organ Maternal Investment Offspring Size 
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

Many thanks to A. Smykowski and C. Sievers for help with fieldwork. We further thank the staff of Lizard Island Research Station for providing excellent working conditions. We are grateful to A. Pemberton and T. D’Souza for supportive discussions, and two anonymous referees for constructive comments on a previous manuscript draft. This study was funded by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG) to NKM (DFG Mi 482/7–3). The research complied with Australian law.

References

  1. Allen JD, Zakas C, Podolsky RD (2006) Effects of egg size reduction and larval feeding on juvenile quality for a species with facultative-feeding development. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 331:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthes N, Michiels NK (2005) Do “sperm trading” simultaneous hermaphrodites always trade sperm? Behav Ecol 16:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anthes N, Putz A, Michiels NK (2006) Hermaphrodite sex role preferences: the role of partner body size, mating history and female fitness in the sea slug Chelidonura sandrana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baur B (1998) Sperm competition in molluscs. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 255–305Google Scholar
  6. Eady PE, Wilson N, Jackson M (2000) Copulating with multiple mates enhances female fecundity but not egg-to-adult survival in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Evolution 54:2161–2165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Emlet RB, Hoegh-Guldberg O (1997) Effects of egg size on postlarval performance: experimental evidence from a sea urchin. Evolution 51:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engqvist L (2005) The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Anim Behav 70:967–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans JP, Marshall DJ (2005) Male-by-female interactions influence fertilization success and mediate the benefits of polyandry in the sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma. Evolution 59:106–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher DO, Double MC, Moore BD (2006) Number of mates and timing of mating affect offspring growth in the small marsupial Antechinus agilis. Anim Behav 71:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. García-González F, Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: intrinsic sire effects contribute to embryo viability. J Evol Biol 18:1097–1103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giménez L, Anger K (2001) Relationships among salinity, egg size, embryonic development, and larval biomass in the estuarine crab Chasmagnathus granulata Dana, 1851. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 260:241–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giménez L, Anger K (2003) Larval performance in an estuarine crab, Chasmagnathus granulata, is a consequence of both larval and embryonic experience. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 249:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurst A (1967) The egg masses and veligers of thirty Northeast Pacific Opisthobranchs. Veliger 9:255–288Google Scholar
  16. Ito K (1997) Egg-size and -number variations related to maternal size and age, and the relationship between egg size and larval characteristics in an annual marine gastropod, Haloa japonica (Opisthobranchia; Cephalaspidea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 152:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivy TM (2007) Good genes, genetic compatibility and the evolution of polyandry: use of the diallel cross to address competing hypotheses. J Evol Biol 20:479–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennions MP, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klussmann-Kolb A, Wägele H (2001) On the fine structure of opisthobranch egg masses (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Zool Anz 240:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight J (2002) Sexual stereotypes. Nature 415:254–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin LA, Bridges TS (1995) Pattern and diversity in reproduction and development. In: McEdward LR (ed) Ecology of marine invertebrate larvae. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  22. 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 156:175–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maklakov AA, Kremer N, Arnqvist G (2006) Ageing and the evolution of female resistance to remating in seed beetles. Biol Lett 2:62–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall DJ, Keough MJ (2003) Effects of settler size and density on early post-settlement survival of Ciona intestinalis in the field. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 259:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall DJ, Keough MJ (2005) Offspring size effects in the marine environment: a field test for a colonial invertebrate. Austral Ecol 30:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall DJ, Bolton TF, Keough MJ (2003) Offspring size affects the post-metamorphic performance of a colonial marine invertebrate. Ecology 84:3131–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall DJ, Cook CN, Emlet RB (2006) Offspring size effects mediate competitive interactions in a colonial marine invertebrate. Ecology 87:214–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McEdward LR, Miner BG (2006) Estimation and interpretation of egg provisioning in marine invertebrates. Integr Comp Biol 46:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran AL, Emlet RB (2001) Offspring size and performance in variable environments: field studies on a marine snail. Ecology 82:1597–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ojanguren AF, Evans JP, Magurran AE (2005) Multiple mating influences offspring size in guppies. J Fish Biol 67:1184–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pechenik JA (2006) Larval experience and latent effects-metamorphosis is not a new beginning. Integr Comp Biol 46:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Podolsky RD, Moran AL (2006) Integrating function across marine life cycles. Integr Comp Biol 46:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poiani A (2006) Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qvarnström A, Price TD (2001) Maternal effects, paternal effects and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 16:95–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruppert EE, Fox RS, Barnes RD (2004) Invertebrate Zoology: a functional evolutionary approach. Thomson, Brooks/Cole, BelmountGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson TE (1976) Biology of opisthobranch molluscs. The Ray Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Toonen RJ (2004) Genetic evidence of multiple paternity of broods in the intertidal crab Petrolisthes cinctipes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 270:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson PJ (1991) Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigosa (Linyphiidae). Anim Behav 41:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yasui Y (1997) A “good sperm” model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Sprenger
    • 1
  • Nils Anthes
    • 1
  • Nico K. Michiels
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Evolutionary EcologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations