Dynamic Games and Applications

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 379–390 | Cite as

The Economics of Egg Trading: Mating Rate, Sperm Competition and Positive Frequency-Dependence

  • Jonathan M. Henshaw
  • Michael D. Jennions
  • Hanna Kokko
Article

Abstract

Egg trading—the alternating exchange of egg parcels during mating by simultaneous hermaphrodites—is one of the best-documented examples of reciprocity between non-relatives. By offering eggs only to partners who reciprocate, traders increase their reproductive success in the male role, but at a potential cost of delaying or reducing fertilisation of their own eggs. Although several authors have considered the evolutionary stability of egg trading once it has evolved, little attention has been paid to how egg trading can invade a population in the first place. We begin to tackle this problem by formally showing that egg trading is under positive frequency-dependent selection: once the proportion of traders in a population exceeds a certain threshold, egg trading will go to fixation. We show that if mate encounters occur frequently, then the cost of withholding eggs from unreciprocating partners is reduced, making it easier for egg trading to evolve. In contrast, the presence of opportunistic ‘streaking’, where unpaired individuals join mating pairs but contribute only sperm, makes it more difficult for egg trading to invade. This is because streakers weaken the link between the number of eggs an individual can offer and its male-role reproductive success.

Keywords

Altruism Cooperation Direct reciprocity Mate choice Assortative mating 

Supplementary material

13235_2014_107_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (98 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 98 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Anthes N (2010) Mate choice and reproductive conflict in simultaneous hermaphrodites. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 329–357Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthes N, Putz A, Michiels NK (2005) Gender trading in a hermaphrodite. Curr Biol 15:R792–R793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anthes N, Putz A, Michiels NK (2006) Sex role preferences, gender conflict and sperm trading in simultaneous hermaphrodites: a new framework. Anim Behav 72:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bschary R (2010) Cooperation between unrelated individuals—a game theoretic approach. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 213–240Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charnov EL (1979) Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:2480–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clutton-Brock T (2009) Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature 462:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Connor RC (1992) Egg-trading in simultaneous hermaphrodites: an alternative to Tit-for-Tat. J Evol Biol 5:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowley PH, Hart MK (2007) Evolutionary stability of egg trading and parceling in simultaneous hermaphrodites: the chalk bass revisited. J Theor Biol 246:420–429CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eppley SM, Jesson LK (2008) Moving to mate: the evolution of separate and combined sexes in multicellular organisms. J Evol Biol 21:727–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer EA (1981) Sexual allocation in a simultaneously hermaphroditic coral reef fish. Am Nat 117:64–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer EA (1984) Egg trading in the chalk bass, Serranus tortugarum, a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Z Tierpsychol 66:143–151Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer EA (1988) Simultaneous hermaphroditism, tit-for-tat, and the evolutionary stability of social systems. Ethol Sociobiol 9:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer EA, Petersen CW (1987) The evolution of sexual patterns in the seabasses. BioScience 37:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman JW, Hammerstein P (1991) To trade, or not to trade; that is the question. In: Selten R (ed) Game equilibrium models I: evolution and game dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol 7:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hart MK, Shenoy K, Crowley PH (2011) Sexual conflicts along gradients of density and predation risk: insights from an egg-trading fish. Evol Ecol 25:1081–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heath DJ (1977) Simultaneous hermaphroditism; cost and benefit. J Theor Biol 64:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hutchinson JMC, Waser PM (2007) Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter. Biol Rev 82:335–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarne P, Auld JR (2006) Animals mix it up too: the distribution of self-fertilization among hermaphroditic animals. Evolution 60:1816–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 75:21–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landolfa MA (2002) On the adaptive function of gamete trading in the black hamlet Hypoplectrus nigricans. Evol Ecol Res 4:1191–1199Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehtonen J, Kokko H (2012) Positive feedback and alternative stable states in inbreeding, cooperation, sex roles and other evolutionary processes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 367:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leonard JL (1990) The hermaphrodite’s dilemma. J Theor Biol 147:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leonard JL, Lukowiak K (1984) Male-female conflict in a simultaneous hermaphrodite resolved by sperm trading. Am Nat 124:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noë R (2001) Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms. In: Nöe R, van Hooff JARAM, Hammerstein P (eds) Economics in nature: social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nowak MA (2006) Fives rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314:1560–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petersen CW (1995) Reproductive behavior, egg trading, and correlates of male mating success in the simultaneous hermaphrodite, Serranus tabacarius. Environ Biol Fishes 43:351–361Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petersen CW (2006) Sexual selection and reproductive success in hermaphroditic seabasses. Integr Comp Biol 46:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Puurtinen M, Kaitala V (2002) Mate-search efficiency can determine the evolution of separate sexes and the stability of hermaphroditism in animals. Am Nat 160:645–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sachs JL, Mueller UG, Wilcox TP, Bull JJ (2004) The evolution of cooperation. Q Rev Biol 79:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sella G, Lorenzi MC (2000) Partner fidelity and egg reciprocation in the simultaneously hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha diadema. Behav Ecol 11:260–264Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sella G, Premoli MC, Turri F (1997) Egg trading in the simultaneously hermaphroditic polychaete worm Ophryotrocha gracilis (Huth). Behav Ecol 8:83–86Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Silk JB (2013) Reciprocal altruism. Curr Biol 23:R827–R828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taborsky M (2013) Social evolution: reciprocity there is. Curr Biol 23:R486–R488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vreys C, Michiels NK (1998) Sperm trading by volume in a hermaphroditic flatworm with mutual penis intromision. Anim Behav 56:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    West SA, Pen I, Griffin AS (2002) Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science 296:72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan M. Henshaw
    • 1
  • Michael D. Jennions
    • 1
  • Hanna Kokko
    • 1
  1. 1.Research School of BiologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations