4.6 Article

Extreme fertilization bias towards freshly inseminated sperm in a species exhibiting prolonged female sperm storage

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.172195

Keywords

sperm precedence; sperm ageing; sexual selection; female sperm storage

Funding

  1. ARC DECRA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The storage of sperm by females across successive reproductive cycles is well documented in internal fertilizers, yet the fate of stored sperm when they compete with 'new' sperm to fertilize a female's eggs has rarely been considered. This gap in our understanding is likely due to the logistical difficulties of controlling behavioural interactions during or after mating, which in turn may influence how many sperm are inseminated and how stored sperm are ultimately used during successive bouts of sperm competition with freshly inseminated sperm. Here, we use artificial insemination (AI) in guppies (Poecilia reticulata), a polyandrous live-bearing poeciliid fish exhibiting prolonged sperm storage by females, to overcome these challenges. The use of Al enables us to control potential differential maternal effects (e.g. behaviourally mediated cryptic female choice) and specifically test for post copulatory paternity biases that favour either stored or fresh sperm when they compete to fertilize eggs. Our paternity analyses revealed the almost complete dominance of freshly inseminated sperm over stored sperm, supporting previous studies reporting similar patterns following natural matings across successive brood cycles. However, our use of Al, which excluded behavioural interactions between males and females, most likely generated a far stronger pattern of fresh sperm precedence compared with those reported in previous studies, possibly implicating 'cryptic' forms of selection by females that may sometimes bolster the success of stored sperm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available