Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 445–459 | Cite as

Two roads to two sexes: unifying gamete competition and gamete limitation in a single model of anisogamy evolution

  • Jussi LehtonenEmail author
  • Hanna Kokko
Original Paper

Abstract

Recent studies have revealed the importance of self-consistency in evolutionary models, particularly in the context of male–female interactions. This has been largely ignored in models of the ancestral divergence of the sexes, i.e., the evolution of anisogamy. Here, we model the evolution of anisogamy in a Fisher-consistent context, explicitly taking into account the number of interacting individuals in a typical reproductive group. We reveal an interaction between the number of adult individuals in the local mating group and the selection pressures responsible for the divergence of the sexes. The same underlying model can produce anisogamy in two different ways. Gamete competition can lead to anisogamy when it is relatively easy for gametes to find each other, but when this is more difficult and gamete competition is absent, gamete limitation can provide another route for anisogamy to evolve. In line with earlier models, organismal complexity favors anisogamy. We argue that the early contributions of Kalmus and Scudo, largely dismissed as group selectionist, are valid under certain conditions. Linking their work with the contributions of Parker helps to explain why precisely males keep producing more sperm than can ever lead to offspring: sperm could evolve to provision zygotes but this brings little profit for the effort required, because sperm would have to be equipped with provisioning ability before it is known which sperm will make it to the fertilization stage. This insight creates a logical link between paternal care under uncertain paternity (where again investment is selected against when some investment never brings about genetic benefits) and gamete size evolution.

Keywords

Anisogamy Sperm competition Parental care Sex roles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the organizers of the MMEE meeting in Bristol for their successful efforts to create a stimulating atmosphere and for inviting us to write this work. We also thank Michael Jennions and two anonymous reviewers for comments, and the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Cultural Foundation for funding; we declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bode M, Marshall DJ (2007) The quick and the dead? Sperm competition and sexual conflict in sea. Evolution 61:2693–2700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulmer M (1994) Theoretical evolutionary ecology. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulmer MG, Parker GA (2002) The evolution of anisogamy: a game-theoretic approach. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2381–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosmides LM, Tooby J (1981) Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J Theor Biol 89:83–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox PA, Sethian JA (1985) Gamete motion, search and the evolution of anisogamy, oogamy and chemotaxis. Am Nat 125:74–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crean AJ, Marshall DJ (2008) Gamete plasticity in a broadcast spawning marine invertebrate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:13508–13513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crean AJ, Marshall DJ (2009) Coping with environmental uncertainty: dynamic bet hedging as a maternal effect. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 364:1087–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dusenbery DB (2000) Selection for high gamete encounter rates explains the success of male and female mating types. J Theor Biol 202:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dusenbery DB (2006) Selection for high gamete encounter rates explains the evolution of anisogamy using plausible assumptions about size relationships of swimming speed and duration. J Theor Biol 241:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eshel I (1983) Evolutionary and continuous stability. J Theor Biol 103:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoekstra RF (1987) The evolution of sexes. In: Stearns SC (ed) The evolution of sex and its consequences. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 59–91Google Scholar
  14. Houston AI, McNamara JM (2005) John Maynard Smith and the importance of consistency in evolutionary game theory. Biol Philos 20:933–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houston AI, Székely T, McNamara JM (2005) Conflict between parents over care. Trends Ecol Evol 20:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurst LD (1996) Why are there only two sexes? Proc R Soc Lond B 263:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennions MD, Kokko H (2010) Sexual selection. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 343–364Google Scholar
  18. Johnstone RA (2008) Kin selection, local competition, and reproductive skew. Evolution 62:2592–2599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalmus H (1932) Über den Erhaltungswert der phänotypischen (morphologischen) Anisogamie und die Entstehung der ersten Geschlechtsunterschiede. Biol Zentralbl 52:716–736 (in German)Google Scholar
  20. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law S, Hutson V (1992) Intracellular symbionts and the evolution of uniparental cytoplasmic inheritance. Proc R Soc Lond B 248:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lessells CM, Snook RR, Hosken DJ (2009) The evolutionary origin and maintenance of sperm: selection for a small, motile gamete mating type. In: Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S (eds) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic, New York, pp 43–67Google Scholar
  23. Levitan DR (1993) The importance of sperm limitation to the evolution of egg size in marine invertebrates. Am Nat 141:517–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Levitan DR (2010) Sexual selection in external fertilizers. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 365–378Google Scholar
  26. Marshall J, McNamara J, Houston A (2010) The state of Darwinian theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-1121-y
  27. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Otto S, Day T (2007) A biologist's guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, Chapter 12 and electronic supplementary material for chapter 12Google Scholar
  29. Parker GA (1982) Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. J Theor Biol 96:281–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker GA, Baker RR, Smith VGF (1972) The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. J Theor Biol 36:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pizzari T, Parker GA (2009) Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. In: Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S (eds) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic, New York, pp 207–245Google Scholar
  32. Queller DC (1997) Why do females care more than males? Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1555–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Randerson JP, Hurst LD (2001a) The uncertain evolution of the sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Randerson JP, Hurst LD (2001b) A comparative test of a theory for the evolution of anisogamy. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:879–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schärer L (2009) Tests of sex allocation theory in simultaneously hermaphroditic animals. Evolution 63:1377–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scudo FM (1967) The adaptive value of sexual dimorphism. I. anisogamy. Evolution 21:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vance RR (1973) On reproductive strategies in marine benthic invertebrates. Am Nat 107:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. West SA (2009) Sex allocation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiese L, Wiese W, Edwards DA (1979) Inducible anisogamy and the evolution of oogamy from isogamy. Ann Bot 44:131–139Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Ecological and Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of BiologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations