Selection on sperm size in response to promiscuity and variation in female sperm storage organs

Cramer, Emily R. A.; Yilma, Zelealem; Lifjeld, Jan T.

doi:10.1111/jeb.14120

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the complex process of sperm selection, highlighting the interactions between sperm and the female reproductive tract ( Higginson et al, 2012 ; Lüpold, et al, 2013 ; Firman et al, 2017 ; Cramer et al, 2023 ). The female oviduct displays the remarkable ability to differentiate among spermatozoa based on various factors, including their quality, motility, morphology, and genetic compatibility ( Ward, 2000 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paternity bias and cryptic female choice in chickens

Wang,

et al. 2024

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paternity bias and cryptic female choice in chickens

Wang,

et al. 2024

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The deviations observed are in part a result of time-lags in male sperm trait tracking a co-evolving female trait and not just a lower realized selection strength than sperm competition only models ( Figures 4 and 5 ). The lower realized selection could be due to variation in female traits ( Cramer et al, 2023 ). Incorporating a generational time lag improved correspondence between male and female traits, especially when preferences were strong and risk of sperm competition was high.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because most premating sexual selection models assume that females are monogamous, the factors that postmating sexual selection empiricists study (e.g., degree of polyandry) are not explored. Additionally, genetic correlations may be harder to establish due to greater stochasticity in the postmating coevolutionary process resulting from (a) selection among males only occurring when multiple mating happens and (b) fertilization not being a “winner-take-all situation” as there will often be mixed paternity in a brood ( Bocedi & Reid, 2015 ; Cramer et al, 2023 ). Thus, we need theory that explicitly considers postmating sexual selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus of most postmating sexual selection theory is on intrasexual selection (exclusive sperm competition), not intersexual selection (cryptic female choice; Parker & Pizzari, 2010 ; Ah-King, 2022 ; but see Ball & Parker, 2003 ; Cramer et al, 2023 ; Lorch & Servedio, 2007 ). Moreover, most postmating sexual selection theory takes a game theory approach focused on strategic ejaculate allocation ( Parker & Pizzari, 2010 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The coevolutionary dynamics of cryptic female choice

Kustra

Alonzo

2023

Evolution Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to sexual selection on traits that affect interactions between the sexes before mating, little theoretical research has focused on the coevolution of postmating traits via cryptic female choice (when females bias fertilization toward specific males). We used simulation models to ask (a) whether and, if so, how nondirectional cryptic female choice (female-by-male interactions in fertilization success) causes deviations from models that focus exclusively on male-mediated postmating processes, and (b) how the risk of sperm competition, the strength of cryptic female choice, and tradeoffs between sperm number and sperm traits interact to influence the coevolutionary dynamics between cryptic female choice and sperm traits. We found that incorporating cryptic female choice can result in males investing much less in their ejaculates than predicted by models with sperm competition only. We also found that cryptic female choice resulted in the evolution of genetic correlations between cryptic female choice and sperm traits, even when the strength of cryptic female choice was weak, and the risk of sperm competition was low. This suggests that cryptic female choice may be important even in systems with low multiple mating. These genetic correlations increased with the risk of sperm competition and as the strength of cryptic female choice increased. When the strength of cryptic female choice and risk of sperm competition was high, extreme codivergence of sperm traits and cryptic female choice preference occurred even when the sperm trait traded off with sperm number. We also found that male traits lagged behind the evolution of female traits; this lag decreased with increasing strength of cryptic female choice and risk of sperm competition. Overall, our results suggest that cryptic female choice deserves more attention theoretically and may be driving trait evolution in ways just beginning to be explored.

show abstract

“…Perhaps an even more fundamental barrier to our understanding of sperm storage in birds is our lack of knowledge of inter‐specific variation in SST morphology. Sperm are some of the most diverse cells in the animal kingdom (Pitnick et al., 2009 ), and so it stands to reason that the structures that selectively store them might also vary considerably in both structure and function (Cramer et al., 2023 ). Sperm length has been found to correlate negatively with SST number and positively with SST length in passerines (Briskie & Montgomerie, 1993 ), suggesting that the co‐evolutionary dynamics between male and female post‐copulatory sexual selection may be a driving factor in the evolution of sperm morphology (Kustra & Alonzo, 2023 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The surprising complexity and diversity of sperm storage structures across Galliformes

Assersohn,

Richards,

Hemmings

2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In internal fertilisers, the precise timing of ovulation with the arrival of sperm at the site of fertilisation is essential for fertilisation success. In birds, mating is often not synchronised with ovulation, but instead females utilise specialised sperm storage tubules (SSTs) in the reproductive tract, which can ensure sperm are always available for fertilisation at the time of ovulation, whilst simultaneously providing a mechanism of post‐copulatory sexual selection. Despite the clear importance of SSTs for fertilisation success, we know little about the mechanisms involved in sperm acceptance, storage, and release. Furthermore, most research has been conducted on only a small number of species, based on which SSTs are usually assumed to look and function in the same way across all species. Here, we conduct a comparative exploration of SST morphology across 26 species of Galliformes. We show that SSTs, and the surrounding tissue, can vary significantly in morphology across species. We provide observational evidence that Galliformes exhibit at least 5 distinct categories of tubule types, including distinctive coiled and multi‐branched tubules, and describe 2 additional features of the surrounding tissue. We suggest functional explanations for variation in tubule morphology and propose next steps for future research. Our findings indicate that SSTs are likely to be far more variable than has previously been assumed, with potentially important consequences for our understanding of sperm storage in birds and post‐copulatory sexual selection in general.

show abstract

Selection on sperm size in response to promiscuity and variation in female sperm storage organs

Cited by 7 publications

References 125 publications

Paternity bias and cryptic female choice in chickens

Paternity bias and cryptic female choice in chickens

The coevolutionary dynamics of cryptic female choice

The surprising complexity and diversity of sperm storage structures across Galliformes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About