4.4 Article

Genetic evidence for alloparental care and frequent multiple paternity in the brooding sea star (Leptasterias sp.)

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-019-3487-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Oregon State University
  2. SURE Science internship funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Echinoderms form an abundant and ecologically important group of marine animals, and they are found in nearly every marine environment, from shallow tropical waters to deep polar benthos and even in the pelagic zone. They exhibit a wide diversity of reproductive strategies that range from broadcasting millions of gametes, with no parental care, to internal brooding of a few embryos for several weeks. While many echinoderm species have become model systems for studies of community ecology, evolutionary genetics, and development biology, very little is known about the distribution of mating and reproductive success in natural populations. In this study, we examined patterns of genetic maternity and paternity in the six-rayed sea star Leptasterias sp., an important predator of many intertidal communities and a species that exhibits maternal care of embryos. We used next-generation sequencing to rapidly develop informative microsatellite markers for this species, and used these markers to genotype 439 juveniles across 15 broods collected from the intertidal in Fogarty Creek, Oregon, USA. Our data show an unambiguous pattern of multiple paternity in all but one clutch examined, with some broods showing some of the highest levels of polyandry reported for a marine invertebrate. Moreover, we detected two cases of mixed maternity in which a female sea star carried another mother's offspring mixed with her own. Alloparental care by females is rare, and since female Leptasterias do not eat during the 40-60 days brooding period, this expensive behavior may provide a useful system for examining the evolutionary costs and benefits of parental care in dynamic intertidal environments.

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