4.5 Article

Among-population covariation between sperm competition and ejaculate expenditure in frogs

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 322-328

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp191

关键词

geographic variation; sperm competition risk; sperm quality; testis size

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0556569, FF0456284]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0556569, FF0456284] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sperm competition theory predicts that among populations and species, male expenditure on the ejaculate should increase with the strength of selection from sperm competition, a prediction for which there is strong evidence from comparative studies of a variety of taxa. Patterns of geographic variation within species can provide important insights into adaptive coevolution; yet, few studies have adopted this approach in studying adaptation to sperm competition. We used highly polymorphic microsatellite markers to genotype clutches of eggs sampled from each of 10 populations across the geographic range of the Australian myobatrachid frog Crinia georgiana. The proportion of clutches with mixed paternity ranged from 0.27 to 0.60. We found significant among-population variation in testes size, the number of sperm stored within the testes, and in the proportion of sperm that were motile. A significant proportion of the among-population variation in testes size and number of sperm was predicted by variation in the density of breeding males found within populations. The covariation between male breeding density and ejaculate expenditure we have found within C. georgiana could be explained either by phenotypic plasticity in ejaculate expenditure in response to local variation in sperm competition risk or an evolutionary divergence in ejaculate expenditure among populations that is driven by variation in the strength of selection from sperm competition. Both scenarios are consistent with sperm competition theory.

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