Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.

When females are sexually promiscuous, the intensity of sperm competition for males depends on how many partners females mate with. To maximize fitness, males should adjust their copulatory investment in relation to this intensity. However, fitness costs associated with sperm competition may not onl...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Melissa L Thomas, Leigh W Simmons
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2008
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/506f25aaac3d4b9ba6f4cd8cfd0f1f69
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:506f25aaac3d4b9ba6f4cd8cfd0f1f69
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:506f25aaac3d4b9ba6f4cd8cfd0f1f692021-11-25T06:12:28ZRival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0002151https://doaj.org/article/506f25aaac3d4b9ba6f4cd8cfd0f1f692008-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/18478102/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203When females are sexually promiscuous, the intensity of sperm competition for males depends on how many partners females mate with. To maximize fitness, males should adjust their copulatory investment in relation to this intensity. However, fitness costs associated with sperm competition may not only depend on how many males a female has mated with, but also how related rival males are. According to theoretical predictions, males should adjust their copulatory investment in response to the relatedness of their male rival, and transfer more sperm to females that have first mated with a non-sibling male than females that have mated to a related male. Here, for the first time, we empirically test this theory using the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. We expose male crickets to sperm competition from either a full sibling or non-sibling male, by using both the presence of a rival male and the rival male's actual competing ejaculate as cues. Contrary to predictions, we find that males do not adjust ejaculates in response to the relatedness of their male rival. Instead, males with both full-sibling and non-sibling rivals allocate sperm of similar quality to females. This lack of kin biased behaviour is independent of any potentially confounding effect of strong competition between close relatives; kin biased behaviour was absent irrespective of whether males were raised in full sibling or mixed relatedness groups.Melissa L ThomasLeigh W SimmonsPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 3, Iss 5, p e2151 (2008)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Melissa L Thomas Leigh W Simmons Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
description	When females are sexually promiscuous, the intensity of sperm competition for males depends on how many partners females mate with. To maximize fitness, males should adjust their copulatory investment in relation to this intensity. However, fitness costs associated with sperm competition may not only depend on how many males a female has mated with, but also how related rival males are. According to theoretical predictions, males should adjust their copulatory investment in response to the relatedness of their male rival, and transfer more sperm to females that have first mated with a non-sibling male than females that have mated to a related male. Here, for the first time, we empirically test this theory using the Australian field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. We expose male crickets to sperm competition from either a full sibling or non-sibling male, by using both the presence of a rival male and the rival male's actual competing ejaculate as cues. Contrary to predictions, we find that males do not adjust ejaculates in response to the relatedness of their male rival. Instead, males with both full-sibling and non-sibling rivals allocate sperm of similar quality to females. This lack of kin biased behaviour is independent of any potentially confounding effect of strong competition between close relatives; kin biased behaviour was absent irrespective of whether males were raised in full sibling or mixed relatedness groups.
format	article
author	Melissa L Thomas Leigh W Simmons
author_facet	Melissa L Thomas Leigh W Simmons
author_sort	Melissa L Thomas
title	Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
title_short	Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
title_full	Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
title_fullStr	Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
title_full_unstemmed	Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
title_sort	rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2008
url	https://doaj.org/article/506f25aaac3d4b9ba6f4cd8cfd0f1f69
work_keys_str_mv	AT melissalthomas rivalmalerelatednessdoesnotaffectejaculateallocationaspredictedbyspermcompetitiontheory AT leighwsimmons rivalmalerelatednessdoesnotaffectejaculateallocationaspredictedbyspermcompetitiontheory
_version_	1718414038993469440

Rival male relatedness does not affect ejaculate allocation as predicted by sperm competition theory.

Ejemplares similares