| Literature DB >> 21501499 |
Dennis Sprenger1, Rolanda Lange, Nils Anthes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence that population dynamic processes can have substantial effects on mating system evolution, little is known about their effect on mating rates in simultaneous hermaphrodites. According to theory, mating rate is expected to increase with mate availability because mating activity is primarily controlled by the male sexual function. A different scenario appears plausible in the hermaphroditic opisthobranch Chelidonura sandrana. Here, field mating rates are close to the female fitness optimum, suggesting that mating activity remains unresponsive to variation in mate availability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21501499 PMCID: PMC3090356 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
General Linear Mixed Model results for the effects of group size (nominal factor) and density (continuous factor) on mating behaviour and fitness components.
| Parameters | df | Type III SS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mate encounter rate (per individual & day) | |||||
| Full model (linear) | 7 | 3208.68 | 16.36 | 0.63 | |
| Group size | 2 | 1554.93 | 27.75 | ||
| Density | 1 | 1134.29 | 40.49 | ||
| Run | 4 | 479.22 | 4.28 | ||
| Error | 66 | 1848.92 | |||
| log Mating rate (per individual & day) | |||||
| Full model (linear) | 7 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 0.30 | |
| Group size | 2 | 0.17 | 0.56 | 0.57 | |
| Density | 1 | 0.41 | 2.82 | 0.10 | |
| Run | 4 | 3.52 | 6.00 | ||
| Error | 66 | 9.69 | |||
| Average egg mass weight | |||||
| Full model (quadratic) | 8 | 2347.63 | 3.60 | 0.31 | |
| Group size | 2 | 4.47 | 0.03 | 0.97 | |
| Density | 1 | 112.08 | 1.38 | 0.24 | |
| (Density)2 | 1 | 1189.43 | 14.61 | ||
| Run | 4 | 1162.98 | 3.57 | ||
| Error | 65 | 5291.15 | |||
| Total egg mass weight per individual | |||||
| Full model (linear) | 7 | 10019.56 | 9.21 | 0.49 | |
| Group size | 2 | 235.63 | 0.76 | 0.47 | |
| Density | 1 | 12.34 | 0.08 | 0.78 | |
| Run | 4 | 9772.64 | 15.72 | ||
| Error | 66 | 10254.59 | |||
| Full model (linear) | 7 | 49.08 | 17.97 | 0.66 | |
| Group size | 2 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.51 | |
| Density | 1 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.74 | |
| Run | 4 | 48.44 | 31.03 | ||
| Error | 66 | 25.75 | |||
Significant P-values are indicated in bold. Note that interaction terms with P ≥ 0.25 were removed from the analysis (see Material and Methods for details).
Figure 1Effects of density and group sizes on (a) mate encounter rate, (b) individual daily mating rate (log-scale), and (c) average egg mass weight. Graphs depict raw data (cf. Table 1), with each data point representing the mean ± SE of 5 replicates. Regression lines illustrate the overall effect of density when group sizes are combined, after correcting for variation between experimental runs. Panels (a) and (b) show fitted linear regression lines and their 95% confidence intervals (grey shades, see Material and Methods for details), panel (c) shows the fitted quadratic regression term.
Figure 2Schematic presentation of experimental tanks (lateral view) for the three group sizes. Note equal surface areas (S) per individual (in cm2) within group sizes. Dashed horizontal lines indicate the water level. Vertical panes are indicated by vertical lines. Note that water volume per individual was kept constant at 612 ml by placing each experimental tank into a larger standardized water tank (not shown).