Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 8, pp 1239–1247 | Cite as

Does traumatic secretion transfer manipulate mating roles or reproductive output in a hermaphroditic sea slug?

  • Rolanda LangeEmail author
  • Johanna Werminghausen
  • Nils Anthes
Original Paper

Abstract

Copulation in the simultaneous hermaphrodite Siphopteron sp. involves injection of prostate fluids into the mating partner with a stylet-shaped penile appendage before insemination. It has been hypothesised that such traumatic secretion transfer manipulates sex roles or the recipient’s short-term reproductive output. To test manipulative effects of traumatic secretion transfer, we ablated the stylet of male-acting individuals and then paired them to untreated focal individuals. Mating behaviour and egg output of focal individuals was then compared between this ‘no injection group’ and a ‘control group’ with sham-treated mating partners. We found that penile stylets were inserted at different areas prior to and during insemination, but prostate fluid injection was restricted to the first phase. Here, injections were into the anterior foot region, indicating that prostate secretions target the nearby male or female copulatory tracts. Our experimental manipulation of traumatic secretion transfer did not affect the exhibited mating roles. Matings in both treatments were usually reciprocal so that both partners acted in the male as well as female mating role. Moreover, sperm recipient reproductive output did not differ between treatments. We conclude that traumatic secretion transfer in this species either affects currently unmeasured traits, for instance the donor’s paternity share, or that these sea slugs are so well-adapted to traumatic secretion transfer that the effects were too subtle to be detected in our current assays.

Keywords

Gastropteridae Sexual conflict Traumatic insemination Traumatic mating Offspring size Maternal size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anne Hoggett, Marianne & Lance Pearce and Lyle Vail from Lizard Island Research station for invaluable support during field work. Comments by Jack O’Connor, Katja Heubel and three anonymous referees helped to improve earlier versions of this manuscript. The German Science Foundation (DFG) provided funds for field work and manuscript preparation (AN549/2-1).

Ethical standards

The experiment reported in this article complies with the current laws of Australia and a permit had been acquired to collect and perform experiments on Siphopteron sp. (GBRMPA permit no G09/30973.1).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

ESM 1

(MPG 13005 kb)

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophoton Int 11(7):36–42Google Scholar
  2. Anthes N (2010) Mate choice and reproductive conflict in simultaneous hermaphrodites. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02624-9_12
  3. Anthes N, Michiels NK (2005) Do “sperm trading” simultaneous hermaphrodites always trade sperm? Behav Ecol 16:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthes N, Michiels NK (2007a) Precopulatory stabbing, hypodermic injections and unilateral matings in a hermaphroditic sea slug. Biol Lett 3:121–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anthes N, Michiels NK (2007b) Reproductive morphology, mating behaviour, and spawning ecology of cephalaspid sea slugs (Aglajidae and Gastropteridae). Invertebr Biol 126(4):335–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anthes N, Putz A, Michiels NK (2006a) Hermaphrodite sex role preferences: the role of partner body size, mating history and female fitness in the sea slug Chelidonura sandrana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anthes N, Putz A, Michiels NK (2006b) Sex role preferences, gender conflict and sperm trading in simultaneous hermaphrodites: a new framework. Anim Behav 72:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Monographs in behavior and ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Avila FW, Sirot LK, LaFlamme BA, Rubinstein CD, Wolfner MF (2011) Insect seminal fluid proteins: identification and function. Annu Rev Entomol 56(1):21–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Backhouse A, Sait SM, Cameron TC (2012) Multiple mating in the traumatically inseminating Warehouse pirate bug, Xylocoris flavipes: effects on fecundity and longevity. Biol Lett 8(5):706–709. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0091 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bates D, Sarkar D (2007) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes.Google Scholar
  12. Blanckenhorn WU, Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward PI (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13(3):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnov EL (1979) Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. PNAS 76(5):2480–2484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chase R, Blanchard KC (2006) The snail’s love-dart delivers mucus to increase paternity. Proc R Soc B 273:1471–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung DJD (1986) Stimulation of genital eversion in the land snail Helix aspersa by extracts of the glands of the dart apparatus. J Exp Zool 238(2):129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox CW, Czesak ME (2000) Evolutionary ecology of progeny size in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 45:341–369. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.341 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosliner TM (1989) Revision of the Gastropteridae (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea) with descriptions of a new genus and six new species. Veliger 32:333–381Google Scholar
  18. Hoffer J, Ellers J, Koene J (2010) Costs of receipt and donation of ejaculates in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. BMC Evol Biol 10(1):393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houck LD, Reagan NL (1990) Male courtship pheromones increase female receptivity in a plethodontid salamander. Anim Behav 39:729–734. doi: 10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80384-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ito K (1997) Egg-size and -number variations related to maternal size and age, and the relationship between egg size and larval characteristics in an annual marine gastropod, Haloa japonica (Opisthobranchia; Cephalaspidea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 152(1–3):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koene JM, Pförtner T, Michiels NK (2005) Piercing the partner’s skin influences sperm uptake in the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koene JM, Sloot W, Montagne-Wajer K, Cummins SF, Degnan BM, Smith JS, Nagle GT, ter Maat A (2010) Male accessory gland protein reduces egg laying in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. PLoS One 5(4): Article No.: e10117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010117
  23. Koene JM, Sundermann G, Michiels NK (2002) On the function of body piercing during copulation in earthworms. Invertebr Reprod Dev 41:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koene JM, ter Maat A (2001) “Allohormones”: a class of bioactive substances favoured by sexual selection. J Comp Physiol A 187(5):323–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lange R, Gerlach T, Beninde J, Werminghausen J, Reichel V, Anthes N (2012) Female fitness optimum at intermediate mating rates under traumatic mating. PLoS One 7(8):e43234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043234 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lange R, Reinhardt K, Michiels NK, Anthes N (2013) Functions, diversity, and evolution of traumatic mating. Biol Rev. doi: 10.1111/brv.12018 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Leonard JL, Lukowiak K (1984) Male–female conflict in a simultaneous hermaphrodite resolved by sperm trading. Am Nat 124:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall DJ, Keough MJ (2008) The evolutionary ecology of offspring size in marine invertebrates. Adv Mar Biol 53:1–60. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2881(07)53001-4. Editor: Sims DW (ed) Elsevier Academic Press Inc, San Diego
  29. Michiels NK (1998) Mating conflicts and sperm competition in simultaneous hermaphrodites. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 219–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michiels NK, Newman LJ (1998) Sex and violence in hermaphrodites. Nature 391:647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G (2003) Costly traumatic insemination and a female counter-adaptation in bed bugs. Proc R Soc Lond - B Biol Sci 270:2377–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RDC (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-108,Google Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2.15.0 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  34. Reinhardt K, Naylor RA, Siva-Jothy MT (2003) Reducing a cost of traumatic insemination: female bed bugs evolve a unique organ. Proc R Soc Lond - B Biol Sci 270:2371–2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sakai S, Harada Y (2001) Why do large mothers produce large offspring? Theory and a test. Am Nat 157(3):348–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sirot LK, Wolfner MF, Wigby S (2011) Protein-specific manipulation of ejaculate composition in response to female mating status in Drosophila melanogaster. PNAS 108(24):9922–9926. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100905108 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith PH, Brown LB, Vangerwen ACM (1989) Causes and correlates of loss and recovery of sexual receptivity in Lucilia cuprina females after their 1st mating. J Insect Behav 2(3):325–337. doi: 10.1007/bf01068059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith PH, Gillott C, Browne LB, Vangerwen ACM (1990) The mating-induced refractoriness of Lucilia cuprina females—manipulating the male contribution. Physiol Entomol 15(4):469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smolensky N, Romero MR, Krug PJ (2009) Evidence for costs of mating and self-fertilization in a simultaneous hermaphrodite with hypodermic insemination, the opisthobranch Alderia willowi. Biol Bull 216(2):188–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sprenger D, Anthes N, Michiels NK (2008a) Multiple mating affects offspring size in the opisthobranch Chelidonura sandrana. Mar Biol 153:891–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sprenger D, Faber J, Michiels NK, Anthes N (2008b) Natural female mating rate maximizes hatchling size in a marine invertebrate. J Anim Ecol 77(4):696–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01376.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sprenger D, Lange R, Anthes N (2011) Population density and group size effects on reproductive behavior in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. BMC Evol Biol 11:107. doi: 10710.1186/1471-2148-11-107
  43. Stutt AD, Siva-Jothy MT (2001) Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. PNAS 98(10):5683–5687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolanda Lange
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johanna Werminghausen
    • 1
  • Nils Anthes
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Evolutionary Ecology Group, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations