4.5 Article

Sperm depletion, male mating behaviour and reproductive 'time-out' in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea, Amphipoda)

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 49-54

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.028

关键词

female quality; Gammarus pulex; male mate choice; reproductive 'time-out'; sperm depletion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Gammarus pulex, male-male competition is generally intense because the operational sex ratio (OSR) is strongly biased towards males; however, studies have shown possible fluctuation in this intrasexual competition, which could be caused by sperm depletion, a phenomenon recently found in gammarids. Sperm depletion may also affect male mating behaviour. We therefore tested the influence of sperm depletion on the OSR in G. pulex. Two sets of experiments were conducted: first, to find out the number of sperm in the testis before and after mating events (sperm depletion), and second, to test the implications of sperm depletion for the mating behaviour of male G. pulex. We found substantial sperm allocation to each reproductive event but also a relatively fast replenishment. However, contrary to one of our hypotheses, sperm depletion had no impact on the male reproductive 'time-out' and therefore on the OSR, since depleted males could engage in a precopula within a few hours of a previous copulation. The decision to initiate an amplexus de novo was more dependent on indicators of the female's quality such as her time left to moult. Depletion status also did not affect male competitive ability. Indeed, in a competitive context, recently mated G. pulex males were more likely to pair again than those males that had not mated recently, independently of sperm reserves, male size and energy storage. Consequently, some males had better access to reproduction than others, which could be explained by various hypotheses. (C) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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