title: Gamete evolution and sperm numbers: sperm competition versus sperm limitation.
abstract: Both gamete competition and gamete limitation can generate anisogamy from ancestral isogamy, and both sperm competition (SC) and sperm limitation (SL) can increase sperm numbers. Here, we compare the marginal benefits due to these two components at any given population level of sperm production using the risk and intensity models in sperm economics. We show quite generally for the intensity model (where N males compete for each set of eggs) that however severe the degree of SL, if there is at least one competitor for fertilization (N - 1 ≥ 1), the marginal gains through SC exceed those for SL, provided that the relationship between the probability of fertilization (F) and increasing sperm numbers (x) is a concave function. In the risk model, as fertility F increases from 0 to 1.0, the threshold SC risk (the probability q that two males compete for fertilization) for SC to be the dominant force drops from 1.0 to 0. The gamete competition and gamete limitation theories for the evolution of anisogamy rely on very similar considerations: our results imply that gamete limitation could dominate only if ancestral reproduction took place in highly isolated, small spawning groups.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK gap@liv.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Geoff A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Parker
authors.affiliation: Department of Evolutionary Biology, Zoological Institute, University of Basel, Vesalgasse 1, 4051 Basel, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Jussi
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lehtonen
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005075:Biological Evolution; D005260:Female; D005306:Fertilization; D008297:Male; D008954:Models, Biological; D012098:Reproduction; D013094:Spermatozoa / Q000502:physiology*
keywords: anisogamy evolution; evolution of two sexes; sperm competition; sperm limitation
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1972 Sep;36(3):529-53
references.pmid: 5080448
references.citation: Reproduction. 2012 Nov;144(5):519-34
references.pmid: 22984191
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2010 May 7;264(1):24-36
references.pmid: 20097207
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1982 May 21;96(2):281-94
references.pmid: 7121030
references.citation: Evolution. 1967 Jun;21(2):285-291
references.pmid: 28556138
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2008 Jun;73(4):461-72
references.pmid: 18485981
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Jan;15(1):10-13
references.pmid: 10603497
references.citation: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014 Aug 21;6(10):a017509
references.pmid: 25147177
references.citation: Nature. 1967 Aug 19;215(5103):862-3
references.pmid: 4964557
references.citation: Reprod Nutr Dev. 1981;21(6A):979-88
references.pmid: 7349562
references.citation: Heredity (Edinb). 1973 Dec;31(3):408-13
references.pmid: 4520649
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1995 Jun;10(6):228-31
references.pmid: 21237018
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):897-934
references.pmid: 20560928