Whose Sperm Fertilize the Female's Eggs if She Mates More Than Once?
Karen S. Oberhauser, Rachel Hampton, Brenda Jensen
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior
And
Sanford Weisberg
Department of Applied Statistics
University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN 55108
Summary | Introduction |
Methods | Results | Discussion
| Acknowledgments | References | Karen's Research Questions
Summary
Sperm precedence, or nonrandom fertilization success among a female’s mates,
is often an important determinant of male fitness. We used an allozyme marker to
study how sperm precedence in monarch butterflies varies with male mating history
and time after a female’s second mating. We found strong second-male precedence,
with large males and previously-mated second males tending to fertilize more eggs.
P2 (the proportion of eggs fertilized by the second male) changed with
time in a way that was affected by the first male’s mating history; second
male precedence tended to erode or remain constant if the first male had not mated,
but increased if the first male had mated previously. The advantage of previously-mated
second males, which transfer fewer sperm than unmated males, could be due to differences
in the competitive ability of sperm, or to ‘cryptic female choice’.
Introduction
Sperm precedence, or nonrandom differential fertilization success among males, can
be an important component of sexual selection in species in which females mate more
than once (Parker 1970). There are several potential mechanisms for sperm precedence.
It could be due to a numerical advantage, if sperm competition is like a raffle
(Parker 1970). It could also occur if there is differential fertilizing capacity
resulting from variation in sperm motility, longevity, or ability to penetrate the
egg (Lanier et al. 1979). Effects of sperm numbers and differential fertilizing
capacity are analogous to male-male competition. Cryptic female choice, or biased
sperm use from preferred males, could also affect sperm precedence (e.g. Walker
1980; Thornhill 1983; Simmons 1987; Eberhard 1991, 1996; Birkhead & Møller
1993; Eberhard & Cordero 1995). Studies of the effects of sperm numbers and
male traits carried out over long periods of oviposition will help to distinguish
these mechanisms. Here we report one such study in monarch butterflies.
Mating male monarchs transfer a spermatophore (see
spermatophores) into the female’s bursa copulatrix. A sperm ampule
is embedded in the distal end of the spermatophore. Sperm are transferred last,
and shortly after mating ends they begin to move through the ductus seminalis, and
into the spermatheca (see sperm movement).
The lepidopteran spermatheca is elongate, with sperm entering and leaving through
the same end; this makes it likely that sperm from the last male to mate dominate
the ‘fertilization set’ of sperm most likely to fertilize eggs (Parker
et al. 1990). As in other Lepidoptera, monarchs produce both eupyrene (nucleated)
and apyrene (unnucleated) sperm (see sperm production).
Apyrene sperm could be important in sperm competition, but their function is not
clearly understood (Silberglied et al. 1984); they may displace previous sperm from
the fertilization set as they move into the spermatheca.
Methods
Experimental butterflies were second generation offspring of wild females. We determined
adult genotypes soon after eclosion (see below) and set up matings to obtain experimental
individuals with genotypes that would allow us to determine paternity in doubly-mated
females. Larvae were reared on common milkweed under ambient summertime photoperiod
and temperature. They were weighed to the nearest 0.01 mg on the day after eclosion,
and fed a 20% honey solution daily.
We assigned females to mating treatments in which the amount of sperm transferred
by two males varied: matings to a) two mated males (M, M), b) a mated male then
an unmated male (M, UM), c) an unmated male then a mated male (UM, M), or d) two
unmated males (UM, UM). All mated males had mated the day before they were needed;
these males transfer a smaller volume of sperm than unmated males (see below). Males
were only used for one experimental mating, and were five to eleven days old. Experimental
females mated for the first time in large outdoor flight cages at ages four to ten
days. Differences between the masses of a female’s two mates ranged from 2
to 162 mg.
The day after their first mating, we put females into separate outdoor oviposition
cages with potted host plants. We collected approximately 30 eggs from each female
during the first day of oviposition to determine their fertility and genotype. Beginning
on the third day of oviposition, one or two males of the assigned second male mating
history were put into each cage until the female remated. We counted and removed
eggs from plants daily, saving 40 eggs from each female per day for genetic analysis.
We maintained females until they had laid no eggs for seven days, could not fly,
or died.
Females that laid no eggs within four days after mating, laid infertile eggs, or
did not remate within seven days were excluded. Our final sample size was 38 females,
plus one that remated within a few hours of the termination of her first mating.
She was not included in treatment comparisons because she laid no eggs between matings,
but we did analyze her eggs.
We used a volumetric measurement to estimate relative sperm numbers from unmated
and mated males. We dissected spermatophores from females mated to males with these
mating histories, removed sperm ampules from spermatophores, and measured their
width and length to the nearest 0.01 mm under a dissecting microscope. We calculated
the volume of a sphere with a diameter equal to the mean of the length and width.
If the ampule ruptured, or if sperm had already begun to leave it, we discarded
the sample.
We assigned paternity using the allozyme marker phosphoglucose
isomerase (Pgi) and the electrophoretic methods and recipes of Hebert & Beaton
(1989). To sample adult genotypes, we removed scales from the dorsal side of the
abdomen with tape. We then cut a small incision in the sixth abdominal segment,
drew one to five microliters of hemolymph into a micropipet, and transferred this
hemolymph to a plexiglass well plate. Incisions healed quickly, and butterflies
behaved normally after this procedure. All individuals had known genotypes at the
Pgi locus (ss, ff or sf), with all females being homozygous for the
slow allele. We did not have enough ff males to assign each female two mates
of opposite genotypes, so first and second mates had genotypes of ss and
ff (N = 10), ff and ss (N = 8), ss and sf (N
= 11) and sf and ss (N=9). These genotype treatments were distributed
evenly among mating treatments.
We allowed eggs to develop for four days, at which point fertile eggs had either
just hatched or were easily distinguishable, and then held them at -75° C. We
homogenized eggs in ten microliters of buffer, and applied this mixture to the well
plate.
We determined P2 values (proportion of eggs fertilized by the second
male) daily (daily values) and for the entire time females laid eggs after
the second mating (overall values). When one male was sf, we assumed
that the number of sf eggs was half the total fertilized by the sf
male. We tested how mating history and size affected male success in sperm competition,
including female intermating intervals, lifetime fecundity, and male genotypes in
the models.
We analyzed sperm precedence using logistic models. These are more appropriate than
models that use P2 values themselves as experimental observations because
they incorporate sample sizes of each value, essentially making each egg an individual
observation. Using P2 values themselves gives equal weight to values
with different levels of confidence. We could not use standard binomial models to
analyze the data, because between-female values were too variable. Instead, we used
a logistic regression model for over-dispersion that allows additional variation
not captured by a binomial assumption (Collett 1991).
Results
(a) Relative sperm numbers
Average sperm ampule volumes from unmated males and males mated one day previously
were 11.44 mm3 (n = 6, s.d. = 4.02) and 4.91 mm3 (n = 5, s.d.
= 0.73), respectively (t-test with unequal variances, p = 0.010), suggesting that
unmated males transferred over twice as many sperm as mated males. It is possible
that relative amounts of sperm and other materials in the ampules of these male
types vary, but differences were not apparent when we looked at their contents;
all were essentially full of sperm. It is also possible that the relative numbers
of apyrene and eupyrene sperm varied. These two sperm types are easily distinguishable;
we counted the number of both in diluted samples and detected no differences.
(b) Overall P2 Values
We analyzed an average of 301 eggs per female (range 26 to 616). There was second-male
precedence; 79% of the 38 females had overall P2 values over 50% (figure
1). However, there were only six cases of complete precedence of one male.
We excluded three cases of complete first-male precedence (P2 = 0) from
statistical analyses because of the possibility that these second matings were unsuccessful.
Since we had excluded unsuccessful first matings, it seemed most reasonable to exclude
these cases. Cases of complete second-male precedence were included because we had
determined the success of all first matings. We did, however, do the analyses including
the three 0 values, and none of our conclusions were affected.
Figure 1. Overall P2 values separated by experimental mating treatment.
All values above the line are second male precedence. All values, including those
of total first male precedence, are included. Numbers next to points indicate that
more than one female had that value.
The over-dispersion model assumes that a female’s true P2, given
treatment and other factors, is sampled from a distribution with mean p2
and variance f p2(1-p2). This allows
two females with the same treatment and other values of the predictors to have different
true values of P2. Using the method of Williams (1982), we estimated
f = 0.28, indicating substantial over-dispersion. Given
f, we calculated the logistic regression as a linear
function of treatment and other predictors. Approximate likelihood ratio tests were
used to assess significance of predictors of P2.
The difference between the mass of the two males significantly reduced model deviance,
with larger males tending to do better in sperm competition (table
1a & b). A quadratic effect of mass was insignificant.
Mating treatment, male genotypes, intermating interval (which ranged from three
to seven days), and total fecundity did not affect P2, although there
was a tendency for females in the treatments in which the second male had already
mated to have higher P2 values (figure 1).
All eggs from the female that remated immediately after her first mating were fertilized
by her second mate (N = 460).
Table 1a. Analysis of deviance likelihood ratio tests for effects
on overall P2.
(Predictors with {F} in front of them have separate factors, or levels, which were
included in the model as dummy variables. M1 and M2 represent the mass of the first
and second males, respectively.)
|
predictor |
D df |
D deviance |
p |
|
{F} TRT |
3 |
2.80 |
0.423 |
|
{F} Genotype |
3 |
3.94 |
0.272 |
|
M1 - M2 |
1 |
5.51 |
0.019 |
|
(M1 - M2)2 |
1 |
2.90 |
0.088 |
|
Interval |
1 |
0.213 |
0.644 |
|
Total Eggs |
1 |
0.672 |
0.412 |
Table 1b. Summary of overall binomial regression model, weighted by extra variance.
|
predictor
|
coefficient
|
t
|
p
|
|
Constant |
0.834 |
4.128 |
0.000 |
|
M1 - M2 |
-0.0116 |
2.946 |
0.006 |
|
df = 34 |
|
|
|
|
Pearson C 2 = 32.40 |
|
|
|
|
Deviance = 35.93 |
|
|
|
(c) Daily P2 Values
We analyzed changes in P2 over time using day/female combinations as
units of analysis. Figure 2 shows the mean values for all of
the females in each mating treatment, with regression lines for each treatment.
Repeated observations on each female are likely to be correlated, and it is appropriate
to use an over-dispersion model similar to that used on overall P2 values
(Collett 1991). To estimate the over-dispersion parameter, we fit a separate linear
logistic regression of P2 on day, day2, mass difference, and
mass difference2 for each female. This gave an overall estimate of 0.43
for f, which we used to fit the logistic regression of
P2 on the above factors plus treatments, and treatment/time interactions
(table 1c & d). Again, the difference
between the masses of the two males significantly reduced model deviance. The significance
of the quadratic of the mass effect suggests that the magnitude of the mass difference
matters, not just which male is larger. There are treatment differences, and a significant
treatment/day interaction, which means that changes in P2 depend on treatment.
Time trends are generally linear in the logit scale, since the quadratic terms in
day are insignificant.
Figure 2. Daily P2 Values. All of the eggs laid by all females in a given
treatment are combined into single data points for ease of interpretation, but the
analysis itself included separate values for each female. The curves on the graph
show separate logistic regressions for each treatment.
Table 1c. Analysis of deviance likelihood ratio tests for effects on daily P2.
|
predictor |
D df |
D deviance |
p |
|
Day
|
1 |
0.017 |
0.90 |
|
Day2
|
1 |
1.319 |
0.25 |
|
M1 - M2 |
1 |
64.910 |
0.000 |
|
(M1 - M2)2 |
1 |
5.760 |
0.016 |
|
{F} Trt |
3 |
35.599 |
0.000 |
|
{F} Trt*Day |
3 |
15.645 |
0.001 |
|
{F} Trt*Day2 |
3 |
2.089 |
0.55 |
Table 1d Summary of daily binomial regression model, weighted by extra variance.
|
predictor |
coefficient |
t |
p |
|
M1 - M2 |
-0.00628 |
-3.975 |
0.000 |
|
(M1 - M2)2 |
-0.0000391 |
-2.176 |
0.030 |
|
M, M trt
|
1.32a
|
2.15
|
0.032
|
|
M, UM trt
|
0.0738b
|
0.551
|
0.582
|
|
UM, M trt
|
1.47a
|
4.61
|
0.000
|
|
UM, UM trt
|
0.853ab
|
3.41
|
0.001
|
|
M, M trt*day
|
0.122a
|
2.29
|
0.023
|
|
M, UM trt*day
|
0.0906ab
|
1.53
|
0.125
|
|
UM, M trt*day
|
-0.0179bc
|
0.043
|
0.965
|
|
UM, UM trt*day |
-0.0886c |
-2.56 |
0.011 |
|
df = 355 |
|
Pearson χ 2 = 355.0 |
|
deviance = 352.7 |
(Positive coefficients for treatments indicate second male precedence just after
the second mating, and probabilities test whether intercepts are significantly different
from 0.5, i.e. whether one male’s sperm are favored just after the second mating.
Positive (or negative) coefficients for treatment/day interactions indicate that
P2 increases (or decreases) over time, and probabilities test whether
the slopes shown in figure 3 are significantly different from 0. Coefficients followed
by the same lowercase (treatments) or uppercase (treatment/day interactions) letters
are not significantly different.)
Binomial regression coefficients (table 1d) show the direction
and significance of these effects, and treatment by time effects are illustrated
graphically in figure 2. Both treatments with a mated second
male have relatively high P2 values early, although initial values in
the UM, UM treatment are not significantly lower than in these treatments. This
suggests that mated second males fertilized a higher proportion of eggs for the
first several days after mating, despite transferring fewer sperm. The slope coefficient
for the time/treatment interaction is significantly negative for the UM, UM treatment,
and positive for the M, M treatment. Slopes in the M, UM and UM, M treatments are
not significantly different from zero, but their signs and magnitudes suggest that
P2 decreases or stays relatively constant when the first male is a unmated
male, and increases when the first male is a mated male.
Complete P2 histories for three females are shown in figure
3. The female in figure 3a had consistently high second-male precedence throughout
her life (figure 3a). The female in figure 3b had an erratic
pattern, with strong second-, then first-, then second-male precedence. Figure 3c
shows gradually changing P2 values over time, a common pattern in our
experimental females.
Figure 3. Complete P2 data from three experimental females, with 95%
confidence intervals for daily P2 values, showing a) relatively constant,
high P2 values; b) erratic P2 values; and c) gradually increasing
values. We calculated confidence intervals based on the binomial distribution. For
values based on 30 or fewer eggs, we used intervals from Blyth and Still (1983).
When the two males shared an allele, we determined the confidence interval for P2/2,
which is based on the actual number of eggs that contained the unique allele. We
then doubled the endpoints of this interval to obtain the confidence interval for
P2 itself.
Discussion
We found strong second-male sperm precedence in monarchs, a common pattern in Lepidoptera
(Gwynne 1984, Drummond 1984). P2 values ranged from 0 to 1, and the over-dispersion
parameters indicate that much of this variation is not explained by factors that
we manipulated or measured. We did see an advantage to large males and to second
mates that had mated one day before the experimental mating, although the mated
male advantage is dependent on time and the first male’s mating history. Changes
in P2 values show that the proportional representation of each male in
the fertilization set changes over time. Here we discuss these patterns and potential
mechanisms.
(a) Effects of male size and mating history
The only pattern apparent in both overall and daily P2 data was the effect
of male size; males larger than their rivals tended to fertilize more eggs. This
is common in insects (Lewis & Austad 1990, Simmons & Parker 1992, LaMunyon
& Eisner 1993, Gwynne & Snedden 1995), and could be a numerical effect if
larger males transfer more sperm. However, the advantage of previously-mated males
suggests that the number of sperm transferred is not the only determinant of sperm
precedence in monarchs.
Preferential utilization of sperm from large males could act separately from a numerical
effect. For example, female dung flies store sperm from larger males where they
are probably most likely to be used to fertilize eggs (Ward 1993). LaMunyon &
Eisner (1994) suggest that Utethesia ornatrix moth females selectively use
sperm from males that transfer larger spermatophores, and spermatophore size correlates
with unmated male size. A large male advantage could also be due to differential
fertilizing capacity (Lanier et al. 1979). A positive correlation between sperm
length and the degree of polyandry in mammals (Gomendio & Roldan 1991) and butterflies
(Gage 1994) suggests that sperm competition selects for longer sperm. In mammals,
longer sperm swim faster (Gomendio & Roldan 1991), and faster sperm may be more
likely to fertilize eggs (Birkhead et al. 1995). While we are not aware of studies
that show within-species correlations between male size and sperm size, this correlation
exists across butterfly species (Gage 1994).
Mated second males tended to enjoy higher early P2 values, despite transferring
fewer sperm. This effect was not statistically significant when overall P2
values were analyzed, but was when the effects of time were considered (table
1c & d). A possible explanation is that mated males
were not a random subset of males; they had already proven their ability to mate.
Males that are successful at obtaining matings may produce sperm that are successful
at obtaining fertilizations. A similar effect occurs in flour beetles; male olfactory
attractiveness to females correlates with subsequent fertilization success (Lewis
& Austad 1994).
Non-zero slopes on the graph of P2 versus time indicate that sperm precedence
patterns change over time. It appears that changes over time could be affected by
sperm numbers; mated first males fertilized progressively fewer eggs, but when the
first male was unmated, P2 values either stayed relatively constant or
decreased over time (figure 2). P2 values in several
other insects decrease over time, and the relative numbers of sperm from the two
males probably affect the degree to which mixing occurs (Schlager 1960, McVey &
Smittle 1984, Simmons 1987, Siva-Jothy & Tsubaki 1989, Martin et al. 1989).
There is no indication that females ran out of sperm from mated male males. We did
not see steep changes in P2 after long periods of oviposition in treatments
that involved mated males, which is expected if sperm are limiting. Additionally,
females mated to a single mated male lay fertile eggs throughout their lives (What factors affect the number of eggs that female monarchs lay?,
Oberhauser 1989, 1997).
(b) Summary of Possible Mechanisms
Second male precedence suggests that sperm in the elongate spermatheca are displaced
by incoming sperm, resulting in stratification of sperm from different males. However,
this stratification is rarely complete; some sperm from the first male are used
to fertilize eggs right after the second mating (e.g. figure 3a).
Changes in P2 over time suggest that the number of sperm transferred
by the first male affects their proportional representation as mixing occurs. Sperm
from the first male may mix with those of the second male in a diffusion process,
causing slow changes in P2 (e.g. figure 3c). However,
changes from total precedence of one male to total precedence of the other in a
single day do occur (e.g. figure 3b). This could result if sperm
from individual males occur in clumps within the spermatheca. The advantages of
unmated male first males over time, and possibly large males, suggest that relative
sperm numbers play a role in determining sperm precedence patterns, especially as
mixing occurs.
The advantage enjoyed by mated second males suggests that sperm from some males
are more likely to fertilize eggs, regardless of their numerical representation.
This could be due to differential fertilizing capacity if "good maters"
produce more competitive sperm. Mechanisms that would result in differential fertilizing
capacity are discussed elsewhere (e.g. Lanier et al. 1979, Sivinski 1984, Dewsbury
1984), and this study does not resolve their relative merit. At this point we can
only say that our results are compatible with a mechanism of differential fertilizing
capacity, and that sperm from males that are more likely to mate, and possibly large
males, might be more competitive. Post-mating female choice may also have affected
our results. Simmons (1987) suggested two potentially relevant mechanisms by which
females could bias sperm use. 1) They could oviposit only after mating with a preferred
male. When a female remates within a few hours of a previous mating, sperm from
the first male are unlikely to have left the bursa. This probably occurred when
one female in our study remated immediately after her first mating. 2) They may
control sperm displacement (see also Villavaso 1975). Because of the long pathway
from the site of sperm deposition to the lepidopteran sperm storage organ, females
have substantial opportunity to influence sperm displacement. The reproductive tract
undergoes rhythmic contractions as sperm enter the ductus seminalis, which probably
propel the sperm (Drummond 1984). Females may also be able to sequester sperm from
the first male after remating, thus keeping it in the fertilization set.
Differential fertilizing capacity and preferential movement of sperm by females
are analogous to male-male competition and female choice, except that they act at
the gametic rather than the organismal level. Distinguishing between them will be
difficult (Willson 1990), but important. An understanding of sexual selection in
many species requires knowledge of events that occur after mating, and continued
study of intraspecific variation and time-dependent changes in P2 will
be useful in elucidating the mechanisms responsible for the species averages that
were reported in much of the early literature on sperm competition.
Acknowledgements
We thank D. Cansler, A. Feitl and C. Jessup for assistance; and D. Alstad, C. LaMunyon,
D. Gwynne, M. Gage and L. Simmons for comments. Research was supported by the NSF
(DEB-9220829).
Return to Karen's Research Questions
References
Birkhead, T.R., Fletcher, F., Pellatt, E.J. & Staples, A. 1995. Ejaculate quality
and the success of extra-pair copulations in the zebra finch. Nature 377,
422-423.
Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. 1993. Female control of paternity. TREE
8, 100-104.
Blyth, C. R., and H. A. Still. 1983. Binomial confidence intervals. J. Amer. Stat.
Ass. 78,108-116.
Collett, D. 1991. Modeling Binary Data. London: Chapman and Hall.
Dewsbury, D.A. 1984. Sperm competition in muriod rodents. In: Sperm Competition
and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems (ed. R.L. Smith), pp. 547-572.
New York: Academic Press.
Drummond, B.A. 1984. Multiple mating and sperm competition in the Lepidoptera. In:
Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems (ed. R.L. Smith),
pp. 291-371. New York: Academic Press.
Eberhard, W.G. 1991. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects.
Biol. Review 66,1-31.
Eberhard, W.G. 1996. Female control: Sexual selection by cryptic female choice.
Princeton University Press.
Eberhard W.G. & Cordero, C. 1995. Sexual selection by cryptic female choice
on male seminal products - a new bridge between sexual selection and reproductive
physiology. TREE 10, 493-496.
Gage, M.J.G. 1994. Associations between body size, mating pattern, testis size and
sperm lengths across butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 258, 247-254.
Gomendio, M., & Roldon, E.R.S. 1991. Sperm size and sperm competition in mammals.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 243, 181-185.
Gwynne. D. T. 1984. Male mating effort, confidence of paternity, and insect sperm
competition. In: Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems
(ed. R.L. Smith), pp. 117-150. New York: Academic Press.
Gwynne, D.T. & Snedden, A.W. 1995. Paternity and female remating in Requena
verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Ecol. Entomol. 20, 191-194.
Hebert, P. D., & Beaton, M.J. 1989. Methodologies for allozyme analysis using
cellulose acetate electrophoresis. Department of Biological Sciences, University
of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario. Helena Laboratories.
LaMunyon, C. W.& Eisner, T. 1993. Postcopulatory sexual selection in an arctiid
moth (Utethesia ornatrix). Proc. Nat. Acad. Science USA 90,
4689-4692.
LaMunyon, C. W.& Eisner, T. 1994. Spermatophore size as determinant of paternity
in an arctiid moth (Utethesia ornatrix). Proc. Nat. Acad. Science
USA 91, 7081-7084.
Lanier, D. R., Estep, D.Q. & Dewsbury. D.A. 1979. Role of prolonged copulatory
behavior in facilitating reproductive success in a competitive mating situation
in laboratory rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 93, 781-792.
Lewis, S. M., & Austad, S.N. 1990. Sources of intraspecific variation in sperm
precedence in red flour beetles. Amer. Nat. 135, 351-359.
Lewis, S. M., & Austad, S.N. 1994. Sexual selection in flour beetles: the relationship
between sperm precedence and male olfactory attractiveness. Behav. Ecol.
5, 219-224.
Martin, J. D., Pashley, D.P. & Mason, L.J. 1989. Sperm use patterns of individual
fall armyworms (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. Entom. Soc. Amer. 82, 177-180.
McVey, M. E., & Smittle, B.J. 1984. Sperm precedence in the dragonfly Erythemis
simplicicollis. J. Ins. Physiol. 30, 619-628.
Oberhauser, K. S. 1989. Effects of spermatophores on male and female monarch butterfly
reproductive success. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25, 237-246.
Oberhauser, K. S. 1997. Fecundity, lifespan and egg mass in butterflies: effects
of male-derived nutrients and female size. Func. Ecol. 11(2): 166-175.
Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects.
Biol. Rev. 45, 525-567.
Parker, G.A., Simmons, L.W. & Kirk, H. 1990. Analyzing sperm competition data:
simple models for predicting mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 55-65.
Schlager, G. 1960. Sperm precedence in the fertilization of eggs in Tribolium castaneum.
Ann. Entom. Soc. Amer. 53, 557-560.
Silberglied, R.E., Shepherd, J.G., & Dickinson, J.L. 1984. Eunuchs: the role
of apyrene sperm in Lepidoptera. Amer. Nat. 123, 255-265.
Simmons, L.W. 1987. Sperm competition as a mechanism of female choice in the field
cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 197-202.
Simmons, L.W., & Parker, G.A. 1992. Individual variation in sperm competition
success of yellow dung flies, Scatophaga stercoraria. Evolution 46,
366-375.
Siva-Jothy, M.T., & Tsubaki, Y. 1989. Variation in copulation duration in Mnais
pruinosa pruinosa Selys (Odonata:Calopterygidae). 1. Alternative mate-securing
tactics and sperm precedence. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24, 39-45.
Sivinski, J. 1984. Sperm in competition. In: Sperm Competition and the Evolution
of Animal Mating Systems (ed. R.L. Smith), pp. 86-116. New York: Academic
Press.
Smith, R.L. 1979. Repeated copulation and sperm precedence: paternity assurance
for a male brooding water bug. Science 205, 1029-1031.
Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly
Harpobittacus negriceps. Amer. Nat. 122, 765-788.
Villavaso, E.J. 1975. Functions of the spermathecal muscle of the boll weevil,
Anthonomous grandis. J. Ins. Physiol. 21, 1275-1278.
Walker, W.F. 1980. Sperm utilization strategies in nonsocial insects. Amer. Nat.
115, 780-799.
Ward, P. 1993. Females influence sperm storage and use in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga
stercoraria (L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32, 313-319.
Williams, D.A. 1982. Extra-binomial variation in logistic linear models. Appl.
Stat. 31, 144-148.
Willson, M.F. 1990. Sexual selection in plants and animals. TREE 5, 210-214.
Return to top | Karen's Research
Questions | Reproduction Home Page |
Research Topics | MonarchLab Home