Marine Biology

, Volume 159, Issue 12, pp 2885–2890

Integrating field and laboratory evidence for environmental sex determination in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus

  • Yasmin Guler
  • Stephen Short
  • Peter Kile
  • Alex T. Ford
Short Communication

Abstract

The causes of sex determination in amphipods are believed to be multi-factorial. Sex determination in Echinogammarus marinus (Leach, 1815) has been reported to be linked with feminising parasites. To date, however, no such studies have linked this species with environmental sex determination (ESD). A field study and laboratory breeding experiments were conducted to determine the influence of photoperiod on sex determination. Over the two-year field study, males dominated during August to November, whilst female-biased populations were observed during April to July. A significant linear relationship was observed between photoperiods and sex ratios from the field data. Under laboratory conditions, photoperiod was also shown to be an influential factor in sex determination, with a male bias over a long-day photo regime (61.5 % male broods) and a female biased over a short-day photoperiod regime (43.5 % male broods). Findings suggest that there is some level of ESD present within the species, suggesting considerable plasticity in the sex differentiation pathway.

References

  1. Adams J, Greenwood P, Naylor C (1987) Evolutionary aspects of environmental sex determination. Rep Int Dev Res Cent Can 11:123–135Google Scholar
  2. Appadoo C, Myers AA (2004) Reproductive bionomics and life history traits of three gammaridean amphipods, Cymadusa filosa Savigny, Ampithoe laxipodus Appadoo and Myers and Mallacoota schellenbergi Ledoyer from the tropical Indian Ocean (Mauritius). Acta Oecol 26:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron B, Buckle F, Espina S (2002) Environmental factors and sexual differentiation in Poecilia sphenops Valenciennes (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Aquac Res 33:615–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull JJ (1980) Sex determination in reptiles. Q Rev Biol 55:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulnheim H (1978) Interaction between genetic, external and parasitic factors in sex determination of the crustacean amphipod, Gammarus duebeni. Helgoland Mar Res 31:1–33Google Scholar
  6. Castiglioni DS, Buckup GB (2008) Ecological traits of two sympatric species of Hyalella Smith, 1874 (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Dogielinotidae) from southern Brazil. Acta Oecol 33:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conover DO, Kynard BE (1981) Environmental sex determination—Interaction of temperature and genotype in a fish. Science 213:577–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doi W, Yokota M, Struessmann CA, Watanabe S (2008) Growth and reproduction of the portunid crab Charybdis bimaculata (Decapoda: Brachyura) in Tokyo Bay. J Crustacean Biol 28:641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duffy JE, Hay ME (2000) Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of a benthic community. Ecol Monogr 70:237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunn AM, Adams J, Smith JE (1993) Is intersexuality a cost of environmental sex determination in Gammarus duebeni? J Zool 231:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn AM, McCabe J, Adams J (1996) Intersexuality in Gammarus duebenii (Amphipoda), a cost incurred in populations with environmental sex determination? Crustaceana 69:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn AM, Hogg JC, Kelly A, Hatcher MJ (2005) Two cues for sex determination in Gammarus duebeni: adaptive variation in environmental sex determination? Limnol Oceanogr 50:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford AT, Glazier DS (2008) Persistently high levels of intersexuality in male-biased amphipod populations. Zoology 111:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford AT, Rodgers-Gray TP, Davies IM, Dunn AM, Read PA, Robinson CD, Smith JE, Fernandes TF (2005) Abnormal gonadal morphology in intersex, Echinogammarus marinus (Amphipoda): a possible cause of reduced fecundity? Mar Biol 147:913–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford AT, Fernandes TF, Robinson CD, Davies IM, Read PA (2006) Can industrial pollution cause intersexuality in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus? Mar Pollut Bull 53:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janzen FJ, Paukstis GL (1991) Environmental Sex Determination in Reptiles: ecology, evolution and experimental design. Q Rev Biol 66:149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kato Y, Kobayashi K, Watanabe H, Iguchi T (2011) Environmental sex determination in the branchiopod crustacean Daphnia magna: deep Conservation of a doublesex gene in the sex-determining pathway. PLoS Genet 7:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly A, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2004) Intersexuality in the amphipod Gammarus duebeni results from incomplete feminisation by the vertically transmitted parasitic sex ratio distorter Nosema granulosis. Evol Ecol 18:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Korpelainen H (1990) Sex-ratios and conditions required for environmental sex determination in animals. Biol Rev 65:147–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lasker R, Wells JBJ, McIntyre AD (1970) Growth, reproduction, respiration and carbon utilisation of sand-dwelling harpacticoid copepod, Asellopsis intermedia. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 50:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legrand JJ, Legrand-Hamelin E, Juchault P (1987) Sex determination in Crustacea. Biol Rev 62:439–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lincoln JL (1979) British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. British Natural History Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Litulo C (2005) Life history of the crab, Macrophthalmus boscii (Audouin, 1826) (Decapoda, Brachyura, Ocypodidae). Crustaceana 78:665–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacArthur RH (1965) Ecological consequences of natural selection. Blaisdell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Maly EJ (1970) Influence of predation on adult sex ratios of 2 copepod species. Limnol Oceanogr 15:566–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maranhao P, Bengala N, Pardal M, Marques J (2001) The influence of environmental factors on the population dynamics, reproductive biology and productivity of Echinogammarus marinus Leach (Amphipoda, Gammaridae) in the Mondego estuary (Portugal). Acta Oecol 22:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martins I, Ford AT, Fernandes TF (2009) Intersexuality incidence, sex ratio fluctuations and intersex reproductive output as factors affecting the temporal variation of intersexed populations of the marine amphipod Echinogammarus marinus. Mar Environ Res 68:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mautner SI, Cook KA, Forbes MR, McCurdy DG, Dunn AM (2007) Evidence for sex ratio distortion by a new microsporidian parasite of a Corophiid amphipod. Parasitology 134:1567–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. May RM (1983) Sexual systems—when to be which sex. Nature 301:16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Múrias T, Cabral JA, Marques JC, Goss-Custard JD (1996) Short-term effects of intertidal macroalgal blooms on the macrohabitat selection and feeding behaviour of wading birds in the Mondego estuary (West Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf S 43:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naylor C, Adams J (1987) Sexual dimorphism, drag constraints and male performance in Gammarus duebeni (Amphipoda). Oikos 48:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naylor C, Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1988a) Population dynamics and adaptive sexual strategies in a brackish water crustacean, Gammarus duebeni. J Anim Ecol 57:493–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Naylor C, Adams J, Greenwood PJ (1988b) Variation in sex determination in natural populations of a shrimp. J Evol Biol 1:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen JJ (1972) Factor affecting sex-ratios of a mermithid parasite of mosquitos. J Nematol 4:83–87Google Scholar
  37. Prato E, Trono A, Biandolino F (2009) Life History of Talorchestia deshayesii (Amphipoda, Talitridae) in the Ionian Sandy Beach (Southern Italy). Braz Arch Biol Technol 52:911–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saher NU, Qureshi NA (2011) Density, distribution and population structure of Opusia indica (Ocypodoidae: Camptandriidae) in a coastal mangrove creek in Pakistan. Biologia 66:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanchez L (2008) Sex-determining mechanisms in insects. Int J Dev Biol 52:837–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Short S, Guler Y, Kille P, Ford AT (2012) Paramyxean-microsporidian co-infection in amphipods: is the consensus that Microsporidia can feminise their hosts presumptive? Int J paristol 42:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tyler EHM, Somerfield PJ, Berghe EV, Bremner J, Jackson E, Langmead O, Palomares MLD, Webb TJ (2012) Extensive gaps and biases in our knowledge of a well-known fauna: implications for integrating biological traits into macroecology. Global Ecol Biogeogr. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00726.x Google Scholar
  42. Visser ME, Both C, Lambrechts MM (2004) Global climate change leads to mistimed avian reproduction. Adv Ecol Res 35:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vlasblom AG (1969) A study of a population of Marinogammarus marinus (leach) in the oosterschelde. Neth J Sea Res 4:317–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watt PJ, Adams J (1994) Adaptive variation in sex determination in a crustacean, Gammarus duebeni. J Zool 232:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang G, Short S, Kille P, Ford AT (2011) Microsporidia infections in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus (Leach): suggestions of varying causal mechanisms to intersexuality. Mar Biol 158:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasmin Guler
    • 1
  • Stephen Short
    • 1
  • Peter Kile
    • 2
  • Alex T. Ford
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Marine Sciences, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Cardiff School of BiosciencesCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations