4.2 Article

Effects of male mating frequency and male size on ejaculate size and reproductive success of female spiny king crab Paralithodes brevipes

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 296, 期 -, 页码 251-262

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps296251

关键词

sperm limitation; male mating frequency; male size; reproductive potential; recovery rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Potential sperm limitation in a fished population of the spiny king crab Paralithodes brevipes was investigated in controlled laboratory experimental and field studies. The laboratory experiments examined the effects of male size and mating frequency on their reproductive potential and the recovery rate of exhausted sperm. The spawning success and fertilization rate of females decreased as the male mating frequency increased. The effects of increased male mating frequency on the spawning success of females and fertilization rates differed between male size classes. Male size and mating frequency have great influences on sperm limitation. Males showed little capacity to regenerate sperm, increasing the likelihood of limited sperm supply to females in fished population with low numbers of males due to male-selective fishing regulations. The field studies examined the structure of a fished population of F brevipes in Hamanaka, eastern Hokkaido, before and after a change in the fishery regulations that permitted smaller males to be harvested. The results showed that a change in the sex ratio occurred after the fishery regulations were introduced, skewing the population towards females. The results also showed a decrease in the mean male size in the fished population. The results also indicated that a significant percentage of males (42.2%) had depleted sperm reserves just after the reproductive season. Overall, the results indicate that sperm limitation could occur in this fished population of R brevipes. These observations may warrant a review of the current fishing regulations, particularly the minimum legal size.

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

4.2
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