Sperm production and allocation in response to risk of sperm competition in the black soldier fly Hermetia illucensuse asterix (*) to get italics

Frédéric Manas, Carole Labrousse, Christophe BressacPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p style="text-align: justify;">In polyandrous species, competition between males for offspring paternity goes on after copulation through the competition of their ejaculates for the fertilisation of female's oocytes. Given that males allocating more spermatozoa are favored, different models of sperm competition predict adaptive plasticity in male sperm production and allocation. These predictions were tested experimentally in the black soldier fly (BSF) Hermetia illucens. In this farmed insect, adult biology is little known despite the economic interest of larvae for bioconversion and as an animal feedstuff. Two sets of experiments were carried out to modify the risk of sperm competition perceived by males. The first consisted of placing adult males alone or in groups of 10 — modifying mean risk of sperm competition — and then measuring their sperm production. The second took place at the beginning of copulation; pairs with males from the two mean risk of sperm competition treatments were transferred to different contexts of immediate risk of sperm competition (empty cages, cages containing 10 males, or cages containing 10 females) and the number of spermatozoa stored by the females was counted. Males reared in groups of 10 showed more spermatozoa in their seminal vesicles than males reared alone. Regarding sperm allocation, females that mated in the presence of conspecifics — either 10 males or 10 females — stored more spermatozoa than those that mated alone. This study shows that sperm production and allocation are dependent on sperm competition risk in BSF, revealing a plasticity of reproduction under socio-sexual situations.</p>

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10488164You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10488164You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Reproduction, Farming insect, Social context, Sexual selection, Copulation, Spermatheca

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Reproduction and Sex, Sexual Selection

David Michael Shuker, dms14@st-andrews.ac.uk, Flavia Barbosa, barbosa@mx.lakeforest.edu, Emmanuel Desouhant, emmanuel.desouhant@univ-lyon1.fr, Nina Wedell, N.Wedell@exeter.ac.uk, Sarah Leclaire suggested: Melissa Rowe, Sara Magalhaes suggested: Hi Trine, Sara Magalhaes suggested: I am on holidays, so I really cannot, sorry! And my second choice on this, Leonor Rodrigues, is on maternal leave... I can suggest our common PhD Student, Sofia Costa (sofiagc98@hotmail.com), she is quite amazing, although a bit young still... I think she would do a good job, but haven't witnessed her work as a reviewer yet. If you go for her, I can have a look at what she did when I come back. let me know! cheers, Melissah Rowe [m.rowe@nioo.knaw.nl] suggested: First of all sorry that I cannot help at this time. I am away from the office at the moment and swamped until after September 22nd. , Melissah Rowe [m.rowe@nioo.knaw.nl] suggested: Other possible reviewers:, Melissah Rowe [m.rowe@nioo.knaw.nl] suggested: Cristina Tuni - cristina.tuni@unito.it, Valentina Peona suggested: Laima Bagdonaitè, Valentina Peona suggested: Laima Bagdonaitè, Valentina Peona suggested: Laima Bagdonaitè No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEvolBiol. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-06-26 09:41:07

Trine Bilde