Advertisement

Factors predicting male fertilization success in an external fertilizer

  • Ståle Liljedal
  • Geir Rudolfsen
  • Ivar Folstad
Original Paper

Abstract

In postcopulatory sexual selection both sperm competition and cryptic female choice are considered to be important selective agents, but their relative importance for male fertilization success has received little attention. We tested whether sperm quality, male spawning coloration, male heterozygosity, and genetic overlap with the female explained a male’s fertilization success in controlled in vitro fertilization competition trials between equal numbers of sperm from pairs of male Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus), an external fertilizer. Offspring were genotyped to determine each males’ share of paternity. The velocity of a male’s sperm relative to the velocity of the competing male’s sperm was the best predictor of male fertilization success. Yet, sperm velocity was not related to spawning coloration or male heterozygosity. In fact, the most brightly colored male in a pair had the lowest fertilization probability. This could result from cryptic female choice for pale males, but might rather be a result of paler males producing more competitive sperm than more colored males. Furthermore, the more microsatellite alleles a male shared with the female relative to the competing male, the higher fertilization success he had. We argue that this latter may be an effect of assortative cryptic female choice, which might prevent hybridization with sympatric Arctic charr morphs or one form of kin selection.

Keywords

Sperm competition Sperm velocity Reproductive success 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Eirik Mack Eilertsen, Davnah Urbach, and Andreas Palmèn are acknowledged for enduring endless sessions of egg counting. E. M. Eilertsen is also the brain behind our ingenious, yet expensive, hatchery. Jon-Ivar Westgaard provided information about the microsatellite primers and PCR protocols. Jakob Lohm and Anne Grethe Hestnes never got tired of sharing their insights in various molecular biology techniques. Audun Stien introduced S. L. to quasibinomial tests and how to produce them, and additional plots, in the R software. Bård Jørgen Bårdsen was also very helpful teaching S. L. how to use R. Torkild Tveraa, Frode Skarstein, Jan T. Lifjeld and Anders P. Møller gave immensely improving comments to the manuscript.

References

  1. Ball MA, Parker GA (1996) Sperm competition games: external fertilization and “adaptive” infertility. J Theor Biol 180:141–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierne N, David P, Boudry P, Bonhomme F (2002) Assortative fertilization and selection at larval stage in the mussels Mytilus edulis and M-galloprovincialis. Evolution 56:292–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Billard R (1988) Artificial-insemination and gamete management in fish. Mar Behav Physiol 14:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Fletcher F (1995) Male phenotype and ejaculate quality in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 262:329–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkhead TR, Moller AP, Sutherland WJ (1993) Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs. J Theor Biol 161:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Buchanan KL, Devoogd TJ, Pellatt EJ, Szekely T, Catchpole CK (1997) Song, sperm quality and testes asymmetry in the sedge warbler. Anim Behav 53:965–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Martinez JG, Burke T, Froman DP (1999) Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1759–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blount JD, Moller AP, Houston DC (2001) Antioxidants, showy males and sperm quality. Ecol Lett 4:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen LB, Dearborn DC (2004) Great frigatebirds, Fregata minor, choose mates that are genetically similar. Anim Behav 68:1229–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, West SuccexGoogle Scholar
  13. Denk AG, Holzmann A, Peters A, Vermeirssen ELM, Kempenaers B (2005) Paternity in mallards: effects of sperm quality and female sperm selection for inbreeding avoidance. Behav Ecol 16:825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabricius E (1953) Aquarium observations on the spawning behaviour of the char, Salmo alpinus. Rep Inst Freshw Res Drottningholm 34:14–48Google Scholar
  17. Figenschou L, Folstad I, Liljedal S (2004) Lek fidelity of male Arctic charr. Can J Zool-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 82:1278–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folstad I, Skarstein F (1997) Is male germ line control creating avenues for female choice? Behav Ecol 8:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Froman DP, Feltmann AJ, Rhoads ML, Kirby JD (1999) Sperm mobility: a primary determinant of fertility in the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol Reprod 61:400–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gage MJG, Macfarlane CP, Yeates S, Ward RG, Searle JB, Parker GA (2004) Spermatozoal traits and sperm competition in Atlantic salmon: relative sperm velocity is the primary determinant of fertilization success. Curr Biol 14:44–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Geyer LB, Palumbi SR (2005) Conspecific sperm precedence in two species of tropical sea urchins. Evolution 59:97–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Harper FM, Hart MW (2005) Gamete compatibility and sperm competition affect paternity and hybridization between sympatric Asterias sea stars. Biol Bull 209:113–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey PH, May RM (1989) Copulation dynamics—out for the sperm count. Nature 337:508–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillgarth N, Ramenofsky M, Wingfield J (1997) Testosterone and sexual selection. Behav Ecol 8:108–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonsson B, Jonsson N (2001) Polymorphism and speciation in Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 58:605–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleven O, Jacobsen F, Robertson RJ, Lifield JT (2005) Extrapair mating between relatives in the barn swallow: a role for kin selection? Biol Lett 1:389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knudsen R, Curtis MA, Kristoffersen R (2004) Aggregation of helminths: the role of feeding behavior of fish hosts. J Parasitol 90:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kortet R, Vainikka A, Rantala MJ, Taskinen J (2004) Sperm quality, secondary sexual characters and parasitism in roach (Rutilus rutilus L.). Biol J Linn Soc 81:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kupriyanova E, Havenhand JN (2002) Variation in sperm swimming behaviour and its effect on fertilization success in the serpulid polychaete Galeolaria caespitosa. Invertebr Reprod Dev 41:21–26Google Scholar
  31. Lahnsteiner F, Berger B, Weismann T, Patzner RA (1998) Determination of semen quality of the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, by sperm motility, seminal plasma parameters, and spermatozoal metabolism. Aquaculture 163:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laird PW, Zijderveld A, Linders K, Rudnicki MA, Jaenisch R, Berns A (1991) Simplified mammalian DNA isolation procedure. Nucleic Acids Res 19:4293–4293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levitan DR (2000) Sperm velocity and longevity trade off each other and influence fertilization in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liljedal S, Folstad I (2003) Milt quality, parasites, and immune function in dominant and subordinate Arctic charr. Can J Zool-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 81:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liljedal S, Folstad I, Skarstein F (1999) Secondary sex traits, parasites, immunity and ejaculate quality in the Arctic charr. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1893–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Locatello L, Rasotto MB, Evans JP, Pilastro A (2006) Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. J Evol Biol 19:1595–1602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Masvaer M, Liljedal S, Folstad I (2004) Are secondary sex traits, parasites and immunity related to variation in primary sex traits in the Arctic charr? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:S40–S42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) General linear models. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelstrom H (1996) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palumbi SR (1999) All males are not created equal: Fertility differences depend on gamete recognition polymorphisms in sea urchins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:12632–12637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker GA (1990a) Sperm competition games—raffles and roles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 242:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker GA (1990b)) Sperm competition games—sneaks and extra-pair copulations. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 242:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peters A, Denk AG, Delhey K, Kempenaers B (2004) Carotenoid-based bill colour as an indicator of immunocompetence and sperm performance in male mallards. J Evol Biol 17:1111–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pilastro A, Simonato M, Bisazza A, Evans JP (2004) Cryptic female preference for colorful males in guppies. Evolution 58:665–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rakitin A, Ferguson MM, Trippel EA (1999) Spermatocrit and spermatozoa density in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua): correlation and variation during the spawning season. Aquaculture 170:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ratti O, Hovi M, Lundberg A, Tegelstrom H, Alatalo RV (1995) Extra-pair paternity and male characteristics in the Pied Flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Development team (2004) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. In. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  50. Rexroad CE, Coleman RL, Martin AM, Hershberger WK, Killefer J (2001) Thirty-five polymorphic microsatellite markers for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Anim Genet 32:317–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rudolfsen G, Figenschou L, Folstad I, Tveiten H, Figenschou M (2006) Rapid adjustments of sperm characteristics in relation to social status. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheldon BC (1994) Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 257:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Males with high genetic similarity to the females sire more offspring in sperm competition in Peron’s tree frog Litoria peronii. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:971–978 DOI  10.1098/rspb.2007.1626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigurjonsdottir H, Gunnarsson K (1989) Alternative mating tactics of Arctic charr, Salvelinus Alpinus, in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Environ Biol Fisches 26:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Skarstein F, Folstad I (1996) Sexual dichromatism and the immunocompetence handicap: An observational approach using Arctic charr. Oikos 76:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skarstein F, Folstad I, Liljedal S (2001) Whether to reproduce or not: immune suppression and costs of parasites during reproduction in the Arctic charr. Can J Zool-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 79:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skarstein F, Folstad I, Liljedal S, Grahn M (2005) MHC and fertilization success in the Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Snook RR (2005) Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 20:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stoltz JA, Neff BD (2006) Sperm competition in a fish with external fertilization: the contribution of sperm number, speed and length. J Evol Biol 19:1873–1881 DOI  10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01165.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tarvin KA, Webster MS, Tuttle EM, Pruett-Jones S (2005) Genetic similarity of social mates predicts the level of extrapair paternity in splendid fairy-wrens. Anim Behav 70:945–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic Female Choice and Its Implications in the Scorpionfly Harpobittacus-Nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner E, Montgomerie R (2002) Ovarian fluid enhances sperm movement in Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 60:1570–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Urbach D, Folstad I, Rudolfsen G (2005) Effects of ovarian fluid on sperm velocity in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:438–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vaz Serrano J, Folstad I, Rudolfsen G, Figenschou L (2006) Do the fastest sperm within an ejaculate swim faster in subordinate than in dominant males of Arctic char? Can J Zool 84:1019–1024 DOI  10.1139/Z06-097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Westgaard JI, Klemetsen A, Knudsen R (2004) Genetic differences between two sympatric morphs of Arctic charr confirmed by microsatellite DNA. J Fish Biol 65:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yasui Y (1997) A “good-sperm” model can explain the evolution of costly multiple mating by females. Am Nat 149:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations