Parker G A, Ball M A, Stockley P, Gage M J
Population Biology Research Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Dec 22;264(1389):1793-802. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0249.
We develop the logic of assessment of sperm competition risk by individual males where the mechanism of sperm competition follows a 'loaded raffle' (first and second inseminates of a female have unequal prospects). Male roles (first or second to mate) are determined randomly. In model 1, males have no information about the risk associated with individual females and ejaculation strategy depends only on the probability, q, that females mate twice. Evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) ejaculate expenditure increases linearly from zero with q, and reduces with increasing inequality between ejaculates, though the direction of the loading (which role is favoured) is unimportant. In model 2, males have perfect information and can identify each of three risk states: females that will (1) mate just once ('no risk'), (2) mate twice but have not yet mated ('future risk'), and (3) mate twice and have already mated ('past risk'). The ESS is to ejaculate minimally with 'no risk' females, and to expand equally with 'past' and 'future' risk females; the direction of the competitive loading is again unimportant. Expenditure again increases with risk, but is now non-zero at extremely low risk. Model 3 examines three cases of partial information where males can identify only one of the three risk states and cannot distinguish between the other two: they therefore have just two information sets or 'contexts'. Expenditure in both contexts typically rises non-linearly from zero with q, but (whatever the loading direction) expenditure is higher in the context with higher risk (e.g. if contexts are 'mated' and 'virgin', males spend more with mated females). However, in highly loaded raffles, sperm expenditure can decrease over part of the range of risk. Also, the direction of the loading now affects expenditure. Biological evidence for the predictions of the models is summarized and discussed.
我们建立了个体雄性评估精子竞争风险的逻辑,其中精子竞争机制遵循“加权抽奖”(雌性的第一次和第二次授精前景不均等)。雄性角色(首次或第二次交配)是随机确定的。在模型1中,雄性对与个体雌性相关的风险没有信息,射精策略仅取决于雌性进行两次交配的概率q。进化稳定策略(ESS)的射精支出从零开始随q线性增加,并随着射精之间不平等程度的增加而减少,尽管加权的方向(哪个角色更受青睐)并不重要。在模型2中,雄性拥有完美信息,能够识别三种风险状态中的每一种:(1)只交配一次的雌性(“无风险”),(2)会交配两次但尚未交配的雌性(“未来风险”),以及(3)已交配两次的雌性(“过去风险”)。ESS是对“无风险”雌性进行最小射精,对“过去”和“未来”风险雌性进行同等射精;竞争加权的方向同样不重要。支出再次随风险增加,但在极低风险时现在非零。模型3研究了三种部分信息的情况,即雄性只能识别三种风险状态中的一种,无法区分另外两种:因此它们只有两个信息集或“背景”。两种背景下的支出通常从零开始随q非线性增加,但(无论加权方向如何)在风险较高的背景下支出更高(例如,如果背景是“已交配”和“处女”,雄性对已交配雌性的支出更多)。然而,在高度加权的抽奖中,精子支出在部分风险范围内可能会减少。此外,加权的方向现在会影响支出。总结并讨论了支持模型预测的生物学证据。