| Literature DB >> 23919162 |
Md Moshiur Rahman1, Jennifer L Kelley, Jonathan P Evans.
Abstract
Female choice can impose persistent directional selection on male sexually selected traits, yet such traits often exhibit high levels of phenotypic variation. One explanation for this paradox is that if sexually selected traits are costly, only the fittest males are able to acquire and allocate the resources required for their expression. Furthermore, because male condition is dependent on resource allocation, condition dependence in sexual traits is expected to underlie trade-offs between reproduction and other life-history functions. In this study we test these ideas by experimentally manipulating diet quality (carotenoid levels) and quantity in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata), a livebearing freshwater fish that is an important model for understanding relationships between pre- and post-copulatory sexually selected traits. Specifically, we test for condition dependence in the expression of pre- and postcopulatory sexual traits (behavior, ornamentation, sperm traits) and determine whether diet manipulation mediates relationships among these traits. Consistent with prior work we found a significant effect of diet quantity on the expression of both pre- and postcopulatory male traits; diet-restricted males performed fewer sexual behaviors and exhibited significant reductions in color ornamentation, sperm quality, sperm number, and sperm length than those fed ad libitum. However, contrary to our expectations, we found no significant effect of carotenoid manipulation on the expression of any of these traits, and no evidence for a trade-off in resource allocation between pre- and postcopulatory episodes of sexual selection. Our results further underscore the sensitivity of behavioral, ornamental, and ejaculate traits to dietary stress, and highlight the important role of condition dependence in maintaining the high variability in male sexual traits.Entities:
Keywords: Carotenoids; dietary manipulation; genetic variation; lek paradox; trade-offs
Year: 2013 PMID: 23919162 PMCID: PMC3728957 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1A male guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Photograph courtesy of Clelia Gasparini.
Composition of high- and low-quality experimental diets (dry weight basis)
| Diets | Ingredients | Carotenoid supplements (μg/g) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish and mussel meal | Fish oil | Vitamins | Gelatin | Others | Lutein | Zeaxanthin | Astaxanthin | ß-carotene | |
| Low | 74.8 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 5.2 | 10.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| High | 74.8 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 5.2 | 10.6 | 1000 | 100 | 100 | 1500 |
Fish meal: 55% and mussel meal: 19.8%.
Vitamin C: 1.2%; vitamin E: 0.7%, and vitamin mix: 1.6%.
Lecithin: 1.2%; immune stimulant: 3.5%, and egg white: 5.9%.
Eigenvalues and proportion of variation explained for the principal components (PCs) of orange spots (OR-PC1–4), iridescent spots (IR-PC1–3), and original sperm velocity traits (CASA-PC1–2)
| PCs | Eigenvalues | % of variation explained |
|---|---|---|
| Orange spot PCs | ||
| OR-PC1 | 39.39 | 64.6 |
| OR-PC2 | 9.56 | 15.7 |
| OR-PC3 | 8.63 | 14.2 |
| OR-PC4 | 3.2 | 5.3 |
| Iridescent spot PCs | ||
| IR-PC1 | 41.43 | 67.9 |
| IR-PC2 | 11.46 | 18.8 |
| IR-PC3 | 8.04 | 13.1 |
| Casa PCs | ||
| CASA-PC1 | 4.44 | 63.4 |
| CASA-PC2 | 1.57 | 22.5 |
Figure 2Identification of landmarks used in the geometric morphometric analysis. We used six fixed (white dots) and 12 sliding (black dots) semilandmarks that were positioned on each image using tpsDig2 software.
Loading matrix with correlations between principal components (PC1–PC2) and original sperm velocity traits
| Traits | PC1 | PC2 |
|---|---|---|
| VAP | 0.94668 | −0.05298 |
| VSL | 0.93471 | −0.23062 |
| VCL | 0.70657 | 0.63464 |
| ALH | −0.09061 | 0.96435 |
| BCF | 0.66168 | 0.22074 |
| STR | 0.94264 | 0.09374 |
| LIN | 0.91485 | −0.36042 |
The eigenvalues of PC1 and PC2 were 4.44, 1.57 and explained 63.4% and 22.5% of the variation in the data, respectively.
Results of diet quantity, quality, and their interaction on male sexual traits
| (A) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Response | df | ||
| Overall model | 20, 59 | 25.9 | <0.001 |
| Diet quantity | 20, 56 | 15.5 | <0.001 |
| Diet quality | 20, 56 | 0.55 | 0.92 |
| Diet quantity × quality interaction | 20, 56 | 0.54 | 0.94 |
| SL (covariate) | 20, 56 | 2.02 | 0.020 |
Overall results of the MGLM are given in (A), with male body length (in mm) entered as a covariate and diet quantity, quality, and their interaction as fixed effects. Separate univarate GLMs were subsequently conducted for each of our traits entering diet quantity as a fixed effect and male standard length as a covariate (B). Mean ± SE is not reported for the RW scores as they are standardized to have a mean of zero.
Body length had a significant effect only for those traits marked with ∧(covariate effects: iridescent PC2: F1, 101 = 9.69, P = 0.002; iridescent area: F1, 101 = 19.3, P < 0.001; iridescent spots: F1, 101 = 4.00, P = 0.048)..
Asterisks denote significance after controlling for FDR.
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01,
P < 0.001; ntests = 21.
Figure 3The mean (±SE) sigmoid displays for males fed high- and low-quantity and -quality diets.
Figure 4The mean (±SE) orange area (A) and iridescent area (B) for males fed high- and low-quantity and -quality diets.
Figure 5The mean (±SE) spectral reflectance of orange (A) and iridescent (B) spots for male guppies assigned to high- and low- quantity diet groups.
Figure 6The mean (±SE) PC1 scores from the CASA analysis for males assigned to high- and low-quantity and -quality diets.
Correlations between pre- and postcopulatory traits for males on the low-quantity (A) and high-quantity (B) diets
| (A) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precopulatory traits | Postcopulatory traits | ||||
| Trait | CASA PC1 | Sperm viability | Sperm number | Sperm length | |
| Behavior | Sexual interest | 0.14, 51 (0.33) | −0.03, 51 (0.85) | −0.11, 49 (0.46) | 0.12, 49 (0.42) |
| Sigmoid displays | −0.20, 51 (0.16) | −0.06, 51 (0.66) | −0.03, 49 (0.84) | −0.16, 49 (0.27) | |
| Coloration | Orange PC1 | −0.02, 50 (0.91) | −0.14, 50 (0.33) | 0.06, 48 (0.67) | −0.02, 48 (0.88) |
| Orange PC2 | 0.02, 50 (0.90) | −0.13, 50 (0.37) | 0.20, 48 (0.18) | 0.09, 48 (0.53) | |
| Orange area | −0.10, 50 (0.51) | −0.05, 50 (0.73) | −0.17, 48 (0.25) | −0.18, 48 (0.22) | |
| Orange spots | −0.09, 50 (0.55) | 0.00, 50 (0.98) | −0.20, 48 (0.18) | −0.21, 48 (0.15) | |
| Iridescent PC1 | −0.15, 50 (0.29) | 0.15, 50 (0.31) | 0.03, 48 (0.86) | −0.19, 48 (0.19) | |
| Iridescent PC3 | −0.20, 50 (0.16) | −0.04, 50 (0.76) | −0.19, 48 (0.20) | −0.19, 48 (0.21) | |
| Iridescent area | −0.06, 50 (0.66) | −0.17, 50 (0.24) | 0.06, 48 (0.70) | −0.09, 48 (0.57) | |
Values shown are correlation coefficients, sample size, and P-values (in brackets). Significant values are given in bold but these were all nonsignificant following correction for FDR.
Indicates trait analyzed using partial correlations to control for male SL.