IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v25y2014i4p989-995..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A test of the sexy-sperm and good-sperm hypotheses for the evolution of polyandry

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn B. McNamara
  • Emile van Lieshout
  • Leigh W. Simmons

Abstract

The sexy-sperm hypothesis proposes that polyandrous females will have a selective advantage over monandrous females as their sons will be sired by males with competitively superior sperm and will inherit this trait. Although the good-sperm hypothesis also predicts that offspring will be sired by males with competitively superior sperm, it additionally assumes a positive correlation between offspring sperm quality and the general viability of both sons and daughters. We examined the potential for sexy-sperm and good-sperm processes by exploring the effect of polyandry on offspring sperm quality and immunocompetence in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus, a species in which sperm viability predicts sperm competitive ability. In the parental generation, females were mated monandrously or polyandrously, where each female received 3 matings. We reared the resultant offspring through to maturity and assayed approximately 10 offspring per family for both sperm viability and immunity. We found that male offspring from polyandrous mothers had higher sperm viability, but that this was not phenotypically associated with male or female offspring condition, as measured by either immune function or ability to survive a bacterial infection. Thus, our data are consistent with a sexy-sperm, but not a good-sperm model in explaining the evolution of polyandry in this species.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn B. McNamara & Emile van Lieshout & Leigh W. Simmons, 2014. "A test of the sexy-sperm and good-sperm hypotheses for the evolution of polyandry," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(4), pages 989-995.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:4:p:989-995.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:25:y:2014:i:4:p:989-995.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.