Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 12, pp 2013–2021 | Cite as

Copulation duration, but not paternity share, potentially mediates inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila montana

  • Outi Ala-Honkola
  • P. Veltsos
  • H. Anderson
  • M. G. Ritchie
Original Paper

Abstract

Studying the incidence of inbreeding avoidance is important for understanding the evolution of mating systems, especially in the context of mate choice for genetic compatibility. We investigated whether inbreeding avoidance mechanisms have evolved in the malt fly, Drosophila montana, by measuring mating latency (a measure of male attractiveness), copulation duration, days to remating, offspring production, and the proportion of offspring sired by the first (P1) and second (P2) male to mate in full-sibling and unrelated pairs. SNP markers were used for paternity analysis and for calculating pairwise relatedness values (genotype sharing) between mating pairs. We found 18 % inbreeding depression in egg-to-adult viability, suggesting that mating with close relatives is costly. Copulation duration was shorter between previously mated females and their brothers than with unrelated males. Based on an earlier study, shorter copulation is likely to decrease the number of inbred progeny by decreasing female remating time. However, shorter copulations did not lead to lower paternity (P2) of full-sibling males. Progeny production of double-mated females was lower when the second male was a full-sibling as compared to an unrelated male, but we could not distinguish between inbreeding depression and lower female reproductive effort after mating with a relative. Relatedness estimates based on 34 SNPs did not detect any quantitative effect of relatedness variation on copulation duration and progeny production. We suggest that inbreeding depression has been strong enough to select for inbreeding avoidance mechanisms in our Finnish D. montana population.

Keywords

SNP genotyping Inbreeding depression Bayesian statistics Beta-binomial distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

O.A.-H was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant number 250999) and PV & MGR were funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/E015255/1). We thank Anneli Hoikkala for access to the fly population.

Ethical standards

The experiments performed comply with the current laws of UK, in which they were performed.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

265_2014_1807_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (474 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 474 kb)
265_2014_1807_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 12 kb)
265_2014_1807_MOESM3_ESM.txt (69 kb)
ESM 3 (TXT 68 kb)

References

  1. Ala-Honkola O, Uddstrom A, Pauli BD, Lindstrom K (2009) Strong inbreeding depression in male mating behaviour in a poeciliid fish. J Evol Biol 22:1396–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ala-Honkola O, Tuominen L, Lindström K (2010) Inbreeding avoidance in a poeciliid fish (Heterandria formosa). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1403–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ala-Honkola O, Manier MK, Luepold S, Pitnick S (2011) No evidence for postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 65:2699–2705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ala-Honkola O, Hosken DJ, Manier MK, Luepold S, Droge-Young EM, Berben KS, Collins WF, Belote JM, Pitnick S (2013) Inbreeding reveals mode of past selection on male reproductive characters in Drosophila melanogaster. Ecol Evol 3:2089–2102PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aspi J (1992) Incidence and adaptive significance of multiple mating in females of 2 boreal Drosophila virilis group species. Ann Zool Fenn 29:147–159Google Scholar
  6. Aspi J (2000) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 84:273–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aspi J, Hoikkala A (1995) Male mating success and survival in the field with respect to size and courtship song characters in Drosophila littoralis and D. montana (Diptera, Drosophilidae). J Insect Behav 8:67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aspi J, Lankinen P (1992) Frequency of multiple insemination in a natural population of Drosophila montana. Hereditas 117:169–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barth M, Hirsch HVB, Heisenberg M (1997) Rearing in different light regimes affects courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 53:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjork A, Starmer WT, Higginson DM, Rhodes CJ, Pitnick S (2007) Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc R Soc B 274:1779–1788PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blouin MS (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 18:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille V, Lotz S (1996) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol Ecol 5:393–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bretman A, Newcombe D, Tregenza T (2009) Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol Ecol 18:3340–3345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charlesworth D, Willis JH (2009) Fundamental concepts in genetics: the genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet 10:783–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Droge-Young EM, Manier MK, Lupold S, Belote JM, Pitnick S (2012) Covariance among premating, post-copulatory and viability fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster and their influence on paternity measurement. J Evol Biol 25:1555–1563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engqvist L (2013) A general description of additive and nonadditive elements of sperm competitiveness and their relation to male fertilization success. Evolution 67:1396–1405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder MN, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frommen JG, Bakker TCM (2006) Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks. Biol Lett 2:232–235PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gasparini C, Pilastro A (2011) Cryptic female preference for genetically unrelated males is mediated by ovarian fluid in the guppy. Proc R Soc B 278:2495–2501PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glaubitz JC, Rhodes OE, Dewoody JA (2003) Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Mol Ecol 12:1039–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harano T, Katsuki M (2012) Female seed beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis, remate more readily after mating with relatives. Anim Behav 83:1007–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoikkala A, Aspi J, Suvanto L (1998) Male courtship song frequency as an indicator of male genetic quality in an insect species, Drosophila montana. Proc R Soc B 265:503–508PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoikkala A, Saarikettu M, Kotiaho JS, Liimatainen JO (2008) Age-related decrease in male reproductive success and song quality in Drosophila montana. Behav Ecol 19:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang MH, Caillaud MC (2012) Inbreeding avoidance by recognition of close kin in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J Insect Sci 12:39PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jagadeeshan S, Singh RS (2006) A time-sequence functional analysis of mating behaviour and genital coupling in Drosophila: role of cryptic female choice and male sex-drive in the evolution of male genitalia. J Evol Biol 19:1058–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaul D, Parsons PA (1965) Genotypic control of mating speed and duration of copulation in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity 20:381–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kokko H, Ots I (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:467–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraemer P, Gerlach G (2013) Demerelate: functions to calculate relatedness on diploid genetic data. R package version 0.8-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Demerelate
  30. Kusakabe S, Yamaguchi Y, Baba H, Mukai T (2000) The genetic structure of the Raleigh natural population of Drosophila melanogaster revisited. Genetics 154:679–685PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakovaara S (1969) Malt as a culture medium for Drosophila species. Dros Inf Serv 44:128Google Scholar
  32. Lande R, Schemske DW (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. I. Genetic models. Evolution 39:24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2007) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav Ecol 18:880–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2008) Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PLoS One 3:e3365PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liimatainen J, Hoikkala A, Aspi J, Welbergen P (1992) Courtship in Drosophila montana—the effects of male auditory signals on the behavior of flies. Anim Behav 43:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lizé A, McKay R, Lewis Z (2014) Kin recognition in Drosophila: the importance of ecology and gut microbiota. ISME J 8:469–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loyau A, Cornuau JH, Clobert J, Danchin E (2012) Incestuous sisters: mate preference for brothers over unrelated males in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS One 7:e51293PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lumme J (1978) Phenology and photoperiodic diapause in northern populations of Drosophila. In: Dingle H (ed) Evolution of insects migration and diapause. Springer, Berlin, pp 45–169Google Scholar
  39. Macbean IT, Parsons PA (1967) Directional selection for duration of copulation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 56:233–239PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mack PD, Hammock BA, Promislow DEL (2002) Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56:1789–1795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mazzi D, Kesaniemi J, Hoikkala A, Klappert K (2009) Sexual conflict over the duration of copulation in Drosophila montana: why is longer better? BMC Evol Biol 9:132PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olsson M, Gullberg A, Tegelstrom H (1996a) Malformed offspring, sibling matings, and selection against inbreeding in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). J Evol Biol 9:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T (1996b) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New York, pp 123–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parsons PA, Kaul D (1966) Mating speed and duration of copulation in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity 21:219–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, the R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-111.Google Scholar
  47. Pizzari T, Lovlie H, Cornwallis CK (2004) Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proc R Soc B 271:2115–2121PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plummer M (2003) A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing (DSC 2003), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  49. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Puurtinen M (2011) Mate choice for optimal (k)inbreeding. Evolution 65:1501–1505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
  52. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
  53. Ritchie MG, Townhill RM, Hoikkala A (1998) Female preference for fly song: playback experiments confirm the targets of sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:713–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritchie MG, Halsey EJ, Gleason JM (1999) Drosophila song as a species-specific mating signal and the behavioural importance of Kyriacou & Hall cycles in D. melanogaster song. Anim Behav 58:649–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson SP, Kennington WJ, Simmons LW (2009) No evidence for optimal fitness at intermediate levels of inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Biol J Linn Soc 98:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Robinson SP, Kennington WJ, Simmons LW (2012a) Assortative mating for relatedness in a large naturally occurring population of Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol 25:716–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robinson SP, Kennington WJ, Simmons LW (2012b) Preference for related mates in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 84:1169–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schjørring S, Jäger I (2007) Incestuous mate preference by a simultaneous hermaphrodite with strong inbreeding depression. Evolution 61:423–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shapiro JA, Huang W, Zhang C, Hubisz MJ, Lu J, Turissini DA, Fang S, Wang H-Y, Hudson RR, Nielsen R, Chen Z, Wu C-I (2007) Adaptive genic evolution in the Drosophila genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:2271–2276PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skaug H, Fournier D, Nielsen A, Magnusson A and Bolker B ($Date: 2013-07-16 13:52:38–0400 (Tue, 16 Jul 2013) $). _Generalized linear mixed models using AD Model Builder_. R package version 0.7.7Google Scholar
  61. Su Y-S, Yajima M (2014) R2jags: a package for running jags from R. R package version 0.03-12. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags
  62. Tan CKW, Løvlie H, Pizzari T, Wigby S (2012) No evidence for precopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 83:1433–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teixeira S, Foerster K, Bernasconi G (2009) Evidence for inbreeding depression and post-pollination selection against inbreeding in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Heredity 102:101–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (2011) Crickets detect the genetic similarity of mating partners via cuticular hydrocarbons. J Evol Biol 24:1793–1800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thunken T, Bakker TC, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17:225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tuni C, Beveridge M, Simmons LW (2013) Female crickets assess relatedness during mate guarding and bias storage of sperm towards unrelated males. J Evol Biol 26:1261–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Välimäki P, Kivelä SM, Mäenpää MI (2011) Mating with a kin decreases female remating interval: a possible example of inbreeding avoidance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:2037–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Veltsos P, Wicker-Thomas C, Butlin RK, Hoikkala A, Ritchie MG (2012) Sexual selection on song and cuticular hydrocarbons in two distinct populations of Drosophila montana. Ecol Evol 2:80–94PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang J (2014) Marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding coefficients: an assessment of current methods. J Evol Biol 27:518–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zuur AF, Hilbe JM, Ieno EN (2013) A beginner’s guide to GLM and GLMM with R. Highland Statistics Ltd., NewburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Outi Ala-Honkola
    • 1
  • P. Veltsos
    • 2
  • H. Anderson
    • 2
  • M. G. Ritchie
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Centre for Genomic Research, Dyers Brae House, School of BiologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations