Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp 44–47 | Cite as

Multiple paternity in Rana dalmatina, a monogamous territorial breeding anuran

Short Communication

Abstract

Polyandry and sperm competition in anurans have rarely been documented. We investigated the genetic paternity inferred from allozyme variations in 650 tadpoles from four natural ponds in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina. Multiple paternity was demonstrated, although R. dalmatina is regarded as a monogamous species. Polyandrous mating was not a common event, occurring only in 17.9% of clutches, with no significant differences among clutches. The proportions of tadpoles fathered by a second male did not significantly differ among ponds, showing that multipaternity was not restricted to a single site. Such a polyandry may result from synchronous multiple amplexus and should reduce the heterozygote deficit related to the breeding-pond fidelity usually exhibited by most anurans.

References

  1. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1995) Extra pair copulation and extra pair paternity in birds. Anim Behav 49:843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blab J (1986) Biologie, Ökologie und Schutz von Amphibien. Kilda Verlag, Bonn, Bad GodesbergGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Orgeix CA, Turner BJ (1995) Multiple paternity in the red-eyed treefrog Agalychnis callidryas (Cope). Mol Ecol 4:505–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duchesne P, Godbout M-H, Bernatchez L (2002) PAPA (Package for the Analysis of Parental Allocation): a computer program for simulated and real parental allocation. Version 1.0 ed. Université de Laval, Laval, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  7. Fukuyama K (1991) Spawning behaviour and male mating tactics of a foam-nesting treefrog, Rhacophorus schlegelii. Anim Behav 42:193–199Google Scholar
  8. Geisselmann B, Flindt R, Hemmer H (1971) Studien zur Biologie, Ökologie und Merkmalsvariabilität der beiden Braunfroscharten Rana temporaria und Rana dalmatina. Zool Jahr Syst 98:521–568Google Scholar
  9. Halliday TR, Tejedo M (1995) Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behaviour. In: Heatwole H, Sullivan BK (eds) Amphibian biology: vol 2, social behaviour. Surrey Beatty, Sydney, pp 419–468Google Scholar
  10. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, Schantz T von (1996) Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381:229–232Google Scholar
  11. Hoogland JL (1998) Why do female Gunnison’s prairie dogs copulate with more than one male? Anim Behav 55:351–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hosken DJ, Blanckenhorn WU (1999) Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts? Behav Ecol 10:462–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jennions MD, Passemore NI (1993) Sperm competition in frogs: testis size and a “sterile male” experiment on Chiromantis xerampelina (Rhacophoridae). Biol J Linn Soc 50:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jennions MD, Blackwell PRY, Passemore NI (1992) Breeding behaviour of the African frog, Chiromantis xerampelina: multiple spawning and polyandry. Anim Behav 44:1091–1100Google Scholar
  15. Laurila A, Seppä P (1998) Multiple paternity in the common frog (Rana temporaria): genetic evidence from tadpole kin groups. Biol J Linn Soc 63:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lesbarrères D, Lodé T (2002) Variations in male calls and response to unfamiliar advertisement call in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: evidence for a dear enemy effect. Ethol Ecol Evol 14:287–295Google Scholar
  17. Lesbarrères, D. Pagano, Lodé T (2003) Inbreeding and road effect zone in a Ranidae: the case of agile frog (Rana dalmatina Bonaparte, 1840). C R Biol (formerly C R Acad Sci Vie) 326:S68–S72Google Scholar
  18. Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hákansson T (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355:440–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Questiau S, Eybert M-C, Taberlet P (1999) Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers reveal extra-pair parentage in a bird species: the bluethroat (Luscinia svecica). Mol Ecol 8:1331–1339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Reading CJ, Loman J, Madsen T (1991) Breeding pond fidelity in the common toad, Bufo bufo. J Zool 225:201–211Google Scholar
  21. Roberts D, Standish RJ, Byrne PG, Doughty P (1999) Synchronous polyandry and multiple paternity in the frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Anim Behav 57:721–726Google Scholar
  22. Schenk A, Kovacs KM (1995) Multiple mating between black bears revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Anim Behav 50:1483–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilmer JW, Overall AJ, Pomeroy PP, Twiss SD, Amos W (2000) Patterns of paternal relatedness in British grey seal colonies. Mol Ecol 9:283–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ecologie AnimaleUniversité d’AngersAngers cédexFrance

Personalised recommendations