4.5 Article

Seminal fluid enhances competitiveness of territorial males' sperm in a fish with alternative male reproductive tactics

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 221, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.175976

关键词

Sperm competition; Seminal fluid; Ejaculates interaction; Alternative reproductive tactics

类别

资金

  1. University of Padova

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most common adaptation to sperm competition in males is represented by an increase in the sperm number and/or quality released at mating, to raise their probability of egg fertilization. However, rapidly mounting evidence highlights that seminal fluid may directly influence the competitive fertilization success of a male by affecting either own and/or rival sperm performance. In the black goby, Gobius niger. an external fertilizer with guard-sneaker mating tactics and high sperm competition level, sneaker ejaculates contain less seminal fluid and more sperm, that are also of better quality, than those of territorial males. However, territorial males gain a higher paternity success inside natural nests. Here, we ask whether the seminal fluid can contribute to the reproductive success of territorial males by enhancing their sperm performance and/or by decreasing that of sneaker males. Using sperm and seminal fluid manipulation and in vitro fertilization tests, we found that own seminal fluid influences the velocity and fertilization ability of sperm only in territorial males, making them as fast as those of sneakers and with a similar fertilization rate. Moreover, both sneaker and territorial sperm remain unaffected by the seminal fluid of rival males. Thus, black goby males respond to the different level of sperm competition faced by differential allocation of sperm and non-sperm components of the ejaculate, with sneakers primarily investing in sperm of intrinsic high quality and territorial males relying on the effect of seminal fluid to increase the lower intrinsic quality of their sperm.

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

4.5
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