Determinants of mating success in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) IV. Sperm competition

Huck, U. William; Quinn, Robert E.; Lisk, Robert D.

doi:10.1007/bf00300142

Cited by 72 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the spatial distribution of free-living M. auratus, with ranges of several males overlapping with a female's range (Murphy 1977) and the occurrence of mixedpaternity litters in the laboratory (Huck et al 1985(Huck et al , 1986), a self-referent matching mechanism may allow hamsters to discriminate among close kin, such as maternal fulland half siblings, or to recognize paternal half siblings. This recognition, and the behaviours that result (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching

Mateo

Johnston

2000

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

189

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In species with multiple paternity or maternity, animals may best assess their relatedness to unfamiliar conspeci¢cs by comparing their own phenotype(s) with those of unidenti¢ed individuals. Yet whether animals can recognize kin through self-matching is controversial. Because golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) mate multiply and can produce multiply sired litters, they were tested for their ability to use selfmatching for kin recognition. Hamsters that were reared only with non-kin since birth responded di¡erentially to odours of unfamiliar relatives and non-relatives. Postnatal association with kin was not necessary for this discrimination. Prenatal learning was unlikely because of delayed production and perception of social odours. To our knowledge, this is the ¢rst demonstration that a vertebrate can use its own phenotype for kin-recognition purposes without prior experience with kin. By using itself as a referent, rather than its siblings or parents, a golden hamster may be better able to direct nepotism towards the most appropriate individuals. Kin discrimination via self-inspection may be especially important in nepotistic contexts (to identify most closely related conspeci¢cs), whereas inclusion of the phenotypes of close kin as referents may be favoured in mate-choice contexts (to identify all related individuals).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Field reports suggest home ranges of 2000 m 2 , with ranges of males and females overlapping (Murphy 1977). Captive females will mate with several males and produce litters with multiple paternity (Huck et al 1985(Huck et al , 1986), a situation favouring a self-matching mechanism (e.g. Sherman 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching

Mateo

Johnston

2000

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

189

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Physical stimulation has been shown to advance estrus in a large number of mammals (J6chle 1975). And at least in the Golden hamster, extra vagino-cervical stimulation is required for females mated during or after ovulation to prevent declines in fecundity (Huck et al 1986). Grevy's zebra males do provide significantly more stimulation to, and estrus is significantly shorter in, polyandrous as opposed to monandrous females (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sperm competition and variation in zebra mating behavior

Ginsberg

Rubenstein

1990

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data are presented on the breeding behavior of two zebra species to test whether intra-and interspecific variation in male reproductive behavior and physiology are correlated with differences in female promiscuity. In one species, plains zebra (Equus burchel-I/) females live in closed membership single male groups and mate monandrously. In the other species, the Grevy's zebra (E. grevyi) females live in groups whose membership is much more temporary. Typically, associations with individual males are brief and mating is polyandrous. However, some females -those having just given birth -reside with one male for long periods, mating monandrously. These differences in female mating behavior generate variability in the potential for sperm competition. We show that behavioral differences in male investment in reproductive activities correlate with the potential for sperm competition. When mating with promiscuous mares, Grevy's zebra stallions made a greater investment in reproductive behavior (calling, mounting, ejaculations) than did stallions of either species when mating with monandrous females. The evolution of large testes size in the Grevy's zebra, when compared to the congeneric plains zebra, horse, and moun: tain zebra, allows for this increased investment.

show abstract

“…In many cases, either the first or the last male to inseminate the female fertilizes the greatest number of eggs, but all of these species are polytocous (i.e., produce multiple offspring at one time), and multiple paternity among litters has been documented in polytocous species (Hanken and Sherman, 1981;Davies and Boersma, 1984;Huck et al, 1985). Most primates are monotocous, which creates conditions of more intense sperm compe-tition.…”

Section: Sperm Competition and Male Baboonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Size, Sperm Competition, and Determinants of Reproductive Success in Male Savanna Baboons

Bercovitch

1989

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. -One component of sexual selection is sperm competition. It has been reasoned that the intensity of sperm competition may be reflected in the relative testicular sizes of animals. Among males residing in multi male breeding systems, testicular size is relatively larger than among males residing in unimale mating systems. Information on whether differences in testicular size within a species can account for differences in male reproductive success is unavailable for natural populations of primates.A population ofsix troops ofsavanna baboons in Kenya was surveyed for morphometric analysis, and one of these troops was the subject of extensive behavioral observations afterwards. Testicular weights could not be obtained, but measurements of linear dimensions were transformed into volumetric estimates. Male weight accounted for 30% of the variance in testicular volume. Neither body size nor testicular volume was associated with differences in male reproductive activity. The outcome of fights over access to females could not be related to male body size, and ejaculatory patterns of males were independent of testicle size. Both sperm competition and aggressive competition intensified during the four-day optimum conception period, but fightsover access to consort females were infrequent.Among savanna baboons, the probability of an ejaculation resulting in a conception is fairly low, which may account for the infrequency of injurious fights. Although testicle size influences sperm production, it does not influence either the timing of mating or the fertilizing capacity of spermatozoa, and both of these factors probably account for a substantial fraction of the variance in male baboon paternity. Sperm competition is an adjunct to agonistic competition as a mechanism affecting male baboon reproductive success. It is concluded that male reproductive success in baboons is affected more by social factors than by morphological traits associated with size.

show abstract

Determinants of mating success in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) IV. Sperm competition

Cited by 72 publications

References 58 publications

Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching

Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self–referent phenotype matching

Sperm competition and variation in zebra mating behavior

Body Size, Sperm Competition, and Determinants of Reproductive Success in Male Savanna Baboons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About