4.4 Article

Short-term exposure to a synthetic estrogen disrupts mating dynamics in a pipefish

期刊

HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 800-807

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.002

关键词

Pipefish; 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol; EE2; Endocrine disruptors; Sexual selection

资金

  1. EPA
  2. NOAA-NERR
  3. Texas AM University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sexual selection is responsible for the evolution of some of the most elaborate traits occurring in nature, many of which play a vital role in competition over access to mates and individual reproductive fitness. Because expression of these traits is typically regulated by sex-steroids there is a significant potential for their expression to be affected by the presence of certain pollutants, such as endocrine disrupting compounds. Endocrine disruptors have been shown to alter primary sexual traits and impact reproduction, but few studies have investigated how these compounds affect secondary sexual trait expression and how that may, in turn, impact mating dynamics. In this study we examine how short-term exposure to a synthetic estrogen impacts secondary sexual trait expression and mating dynamics in the Gulf pipefish, a species displaying sex-role reversal. Our results show that only 10 days of exposure to 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol results in adult male pipefish developing female-like secondary sexual traits. While these males are capable of reproduction, females discriminate against exposed males in mate choice trials. In natural populations, this type of discrimination would reduce male mating opportunities, thus potentially reducing their long-term reproductive success. Importantly, the effects of these compounds on mating dynamics and mating opportunity would not be observed using the current standard methods of assessing environmental contamination. However, disrupting these processes could have profound effects on the viability of exposed populations. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据