Abstract
Most studies of genetic parentage in natural populations have been limited to a single breeding season or reproductive episode and, thus, provide only a snapshot of individuals’ mating behaviours. Female turtles can store viable sperm in their reproductive tracts for as long as several years, but the extent to which this capacity is utilized in nature has remained unknown. Here, we employ microsatellite markers to assess genetic paternity in successive clutches of individually marked, free-ranging female painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) over a four year period. The genetic data from 113 clutches from this natural population demonstrate that most females (80.5%) remated each year and that each female generally used a single male’s sperm to fertilize all clutches laid within a year. However, sperm usage among females varied considerably, and some females apparently used sperm that had been stored for up to three years to fertilize some or all eggs laid in consecutive nesting seasons. Thus, remating by females is not necessary for continued offspring production from a given sire. Furthermore, 13.2% of all clutches examined showed evidence of multiple paternity, and the genetic paternity patterns across years suggest a ‘last in, first out’ operation of the females’ sperm storage tubules.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The female reproductive tract of many species is physiologically capable of storing viable sperm for varying periods of time following a copulation event (Howarth, 1974; Smith, 1984): typically a matter of days in mammals, weeks in many insects and birds, months in some salamanders, and, incredibly, several years in some snakes and turtles (Birkhead & Møller, 1993; Galbraith, 1993; Palmer et al., 1998). The suspicion of long-term sperm storage by female turtles originally came from observations that captive individuals maintained in isolation may continue to produce offspring long after contact with a male (Coker, 1920; Ewing, 1943), although by hard criteria such outcomes alone cannot eliminate the possibility of parthenogenetic reproduction. The deduction that females are capable of utilizing long-stored sperm later was bolstered by the physical finding of sperm sequestered in oviduct tissue (Gist & Jones, 1989). However, such observations do not reveal whether females in nature utilize long-stored sperm to fertilize their eggs, and if so, how often or under what circumstances.
Molecular markers of genetic paternity provide a new approach for critically examining issues on the utilization of female-stored sperm (Galbraith et al., 1993; Fitzsimmons, 1998). Furthermore, genetic data from successive clutches within and across breeding seasons (Kvarnemo et al., 2000; Oring et al., 1992) offer an extended perspective on individual reproductive behaviours and population mating systems that might differ considerably from the single-time appraisals that have characterized nearly all previous genetic parentage studies in numerous taxa (Harry & Briscoe, 1988; Barry et al., 1992; Avise, 1994; Hasselquist et al., 1996; Gullberg et al., 1997). Here we employ microsatellite markers in conjunction with long-term field observations to assess patterns of sperm utilization within and across four breeding seasons in a natural population of the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), a species in which females have the potential to store sperm for long periods of time (Gist & Jones, 1989).
Materials and methods
Samples were collected from May to July 1995 to 1998, from a population on the Mississippi River near Thomson, Illinois, where nesting females have been tagged and monitored for more than a decade (Janzen, 1994; Morjan & Janzen, submitted). Upon first capture, each female was notched with a unique marginal scute pattern for subsequent identification, and a blood sample was taken and stored in lysis buffer (Seutin et al., 1991). Painted turtles mate in the water, and each female later comes ashore one or more times during a breeding season to dig a shallow nest and lay a clutch of about a dozen eggs (Morjan & Janzen, submitted). A subset of the offspring was sampled from each observed nest laid by a marked female (mean offspring sampled per nest=5.51, SD=1.66; range=1–13). These hatchlings were taken to the lab and preserved in 95% ethanol, initially for an examination of environmental influences on gender determination (Janzen, 1994; Morjan & Janzen, submitted). The current paternity analyses include hatchlings taken from 113 clutches laid by 32 females.
Microsatellite loci were obtained from a partial genomic library constructed for C. picta from the blood of one turtle. This library was screened with eight radiolabelled oligonucleotide probes for specific microsatellite motifs (di-, tri-, and tetranucleotides), following standard protocols. From the ≈ 1200 colonies screened, 20 positives were identified. Sequences were obtained using the fmol DNA sequencing system (Promega, Madison, WI) and 32P autoradiography, and five primer-pairs were designed from these sequences. Three of these amplified microsatellite loci (consisting of complex dinucleotide repeats in each case) proved scorable and highly polymorphic. Primer sequences were as follows: Cp2, U( CTCTAAGGGTTGCACTTCTCAAA ), L( GAGGTGGCATCAAAACATCAT ); Cp3, U( ATCTTTAAGTCTGTGAACTTCAGGG ), L( CTGTCTCATGCAAAGCTGGTAG ); Cp10, U( GGTGCAGCAAGTTCAGGAGAC ), L( GGTGTTAATGCACTGGAGAATCA ). At least two and often all three loci were utilized to genotype a grand total of 714 offspring, mothers, and population samples (other females whose nests were not sampled).
For adults, DNA was extracted from blood samples following standard phenol : chloroform protocols, and then was resuspended in deionized water. From hatchlings, DNA was extracted from liver tissue using Chelex (Bio-Rad). Preliminary screens for allelic variation, as well as genotypes for two broods, were performed using PCR primers end-labelled with 32P-ATP. All other genotyping was performed using fluorescent dye- labelled primers (Perkin-Elmer) and Applied Biosystems 377XL automated genotypers. All loci were amplified in 10 μL reactions consisting of 1× Promega Taq buffer, 0.1 mM dNTPs, 1.25 mM MgCl2, 1 picomole of each primer, and 2.0 units of Promega Taq polymerase. The same PCR thermal profile was used for all loci: 94°C for 2 min, then 50 s at 94°C, 50 s at 52°C, and 50 s at 72°C, for 30 cycles.
Genetic sire(s) for each clutch were deduced by subtracting the known maternal contribution from the multilocus genotype of each offspring, as exemplified in Table 1. For each clutch, single paternity was considered the null hypothesis, and multiple paternity was inferred only when concordant support existed from multiple loci. Similarly, remating between clutches was considered the null hypothesis, and sperm storage was inferred only when multiple loci and/or hatchlings indicated parentage by the same father across clutches.
Results
Background
The three loci utilized displayed an average of 24 alleles per locus and a mean heterozygosity of 0.85. The combined paternity exclusion probability (Jamieson & Taylor, 1997) was 0.997 when all three loci were employed; it was 0.934 for the two loci (Cp2 and Cp3) that in most cases were sufficient to deduce paternity of a clutch. Each locus appeared to segregate normally within progeny arrays, and deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium were not detected in the sample of 91 presumably unrelated individuals from the adult population (Hardy–Weinberg probability test: Cp2, P=0.95; Cp3, P=0.23; Cp10, P=0.34; GENEPOP 3.1c, Raymond & Rousset, 1995).
No null alleles or de novo mutations were detected in any of the progeny arrays. However, one hatchling displayed a genotype at locus Cp10 in which neither allele matched either of the maternal alleles, nor the paternal alleles present in this youngster’s presumed siblings (despite the fact that this hatchling’s genotypes at the other two loci were consistent with its known mother and the deduced father of the clutch). The explanation for this one aberrant individual is unknown.
Paternity analyses
Examples of three patterns of paternity are highlighted in Table 2. Data on genetic parentage for all 32 painted turtle females and their 113 clutches are summarized in Table 3, from which the following conclusions derive.
For sequential pairs of clutches within a nesting season (N=29 pairs), no assayed female utilized sperm from an additional mating between nesting events. Thus, each year, most of the females apparently copulated with only one male and utilized his sperm to fertilize all clutches laid in that season. [Alternatively, she might have had additional mates, but did not employ their sperm to fertilize her eggs (Fitzsimmons, 1998)]. In contrast, for clutches laid by a given female in sequential years, a new male sired the second year’s clutch(es) on 34 occasions (77.3% of N=44 such across-year clutch-pairs). In the remaining cases (22.7%), a female’s offspring in successive years were sired by the same male. Many females used a single male’s sperm for multiple clutches, so it appears likely that from each mating, fathers often fertilized more than one clutch (mean=1.57, SD=0.65; Fig. 1).
Multiple paternity was detected in only 15 nests (13.2%). Therefore, a single male usually fathered all of the hatchlings in a clutch. However, two distinct modes of multiple paternity were evident for the occasional instances of multiple sires within a clutch. In the first mode, a female appears to have acquired sperm from two males within a year, both of whom then sired some progeny in all nests sampled that year (see, for example, female 27 in Table 3). In these cases, the relative contributions to a clutch by the two males ranged from highly skewed to nearly equal (Pearse, Janzen, and Avise, manuscript in preparation).
The second mode of multiple paternity, found in six clutches, involved apparent low-level sperm storage for one or more years coupled with female remating (e.g. female 14 in years 1996 and 1997; Table 3). In such cases, some proportion (mean=21% per clutch) of a female’s offspring in the second year were fathered by a male who was the sole sire of her previous year’s clutch(es). The modest percentages of hatchlings sired by the earlier-year male do not appear to be due solely to depletion or death of stored sperm, because in cases when the female did not remate in the second year, the hatching success of her second-year clutch (mean=0.86, SD=0.14; Fig. 2) was not significantly different from that of her first-year clutch (mean=0.83, SD=0.19; Fig. 2).
Discussion
Overall, the genetic paternity analyses strongly suggest that these female painted turtles normally remate successfully only between nesting seasons, and that they frequently store and utilize sperm across multiple years. One potential caveat to the latter conclusion is that consecutive clutches sired by the same male might register remating by the female with that individual, rather than the storage of his sperm for long periods in her reproductive tract. Although we cannot rule out this possibility completely, such remating is unlikely for several reasons.
First, seldom were females found to employ a single male’s sperm in a nonsequential (interrupted) sequence of clutches, yet such a dispersed pattern of paternity could be common if females often remated with particular males during their lifetimes. Second, the population size at this location is large, numbering several hundred adult males at least, and probably more than 1000 sexually mature individuals (as judged by field observations and various lines of mark–recapture evidence; Pearse, Eckerman, Janzen, and Avise, submitted). Finally, this species is highly mobile (MacCulloch & Secoy, 1983), so females probably encounter many males from outside the immediate area over the course of a breeding season. All of these biological points argue that inter-year matings between the same pairs of painted turtles in this population are unlikely to underlie most of the genetically deduced instances in which a female’s consecutive clutches were fathered by the same male.
In female painted turtles, stored sperm evidently can be sufficient to produce clutches over multiple seasons. Thus, these genetic data imply that females remate for reasons other than the acquisition of gametes for fertilization (Fig. 2; also see Reinhardt et al., 1999 for similar findings in a grasshopper). One possibility for this long-lived species (life span more than 30 years; Ernst et al., 1984) is that serial monogamy confers one or more life-long genetic benefits to a female similar to those within a multiple-paternity clutch in a short-lived species: e.g. an opportunity for ‘better’ paternal genes for progeny, or production of offspring with a broader collective diversity of genotypes (Parker, 1984; Gowaty & Bridges, 1991; Madsen et al., 1992). In this cumulative way, a female turtle might receive possible benefits of multiple paternity over several years of reproduction, rather than within a clutch. Against such suspected benefits are the energetic or ecological costs to females that multiple matings also might entail (Birkhead & Møller, 1992).
From the male’s perspective, sperm storage confers more evident fitness opportunities, as well as costs. Whereas sperm storage usually is thought of as a female adaptation that separates copulation from nesting, encourages sperm competition, or allows for cryptic female choice (Olsson & Madsen, 1998), the production of sperm that can survive long-term storage in females clearly can benefit successful males by increasing the number of eggs that they may fertilize (Fig. 1). For rival males, the flip side of that coin is that female-stored sperm in effect can ‘steal’ some of the potential fertilization events otherwise available to them (Oring et al., 1992). For example, in the current cases where females remated between years but also utilized some stored sperm, their second year mates lost on average about 21% of their reproductive potential to stored sperm from the previous year’s male.
The pattern of stored sperm use in these cases can also be informative with respect to the mechanism of sperm storage. Two of these females (numbers 14 and 31, Table 3) produced two (rather than one) assayed clutches in the second year. In both cases, the fertilization(s) by sperm stored from the first-year father were confined to the second of her clutches in the subsequent year. One reasonable interpretation is that in her initial clutch of the second year, the second male’s sperm took precedence over the first (Birkhead, 1998), perhaps by stratification, displacement, or some form of female choice. This pattern of ‘last in, first out’ generally follows paternity predictions based on details of the morphology of the female reproductive tract and the timing of ovulation and fertilization in turtles (Gist & Congdon, 1998).
An additional observation regarding patterns of sperm use involves cases where a female did not remate after laying a multiply sired clutch. In each of three such cases (females 9, 29 and 30, Table 3), a later clutch was singly sired by just one of the two fathers from the previous clutch. Thus, through some combination of sperm depletion, sperm competition, or cryptic female choice, one of the males gained substantial fitness by siring an additional clutch not shared with the other male.
Snapshot investigations of genetic paternity in many species have provided powerful information about parentage, mating behaviour, and the mating system in a given breeding episode. However, extended temporal analyses can offer additional perspectives. Previous studies of paternity patterns in multiple clutches within a year have indicated that female turtles in nature can store sperm throughout a nesting season (Galbraith et al., 1993; Fitzsimmons, 1998). In the current study of painted turtles, a snapshot view merely would have indicated that females are primarily monogamous. However, our temporally extended genetic survey yields a richer documentary: frequent mate-switching by females across but seldom if ever within years; storage and utilization of sperm by females for long periods of time (at least three years in some cases); and a stratified pattern of sperm usage from multiple matings dispersed in time.
In the future, it would be desirable in studies of turtles or other long-lived species to extend genetic investigations of the current sort to assess life-long means and variances in reproductive success, as has been done in some cases from behavioural data (Clutton-Brock, 1988). Such studies would bring us closer to an understanding of the relationships between mating behaviours and lifetime genetic fitness.
References
Avise, J. C. (1994). Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. Chapman & Hall, New York.
Barry, F. E., Weatherhead, P. J. and Philipp, D. P. (1992). Multiple paternity in a wild population of northern water snakes, Nerodia sipedon. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 30: 193–199.
Birkhead, T. R. (1998). Sperm competition in birds: mechanisms and function. In: Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (eds) Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, pp. 579–622. Academic Press, San Diego.
Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (1992). Sperm Competition in Birds. Academic Press, New York.
Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (1993). Sexual selection and the temporal separation of reproductive events: sperm storage data from reptiles, birds and mammals. Biol J Linn Soc, 50: 295–311.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed.). (1988). Reproductive Success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Coker, R. (1920). The diamond-back terrapin: Past, present and future. Sci Monthly, 11: 171–186.
Ernst, C. H., Barbour, R. W. and Lovich, J. E. (1984). Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Ewing, H. (1943). Continued fertility in female box turtles following mating. Copeia, 1943: 112–114.
Fitzsimmons, N. N. (1998). Single paternity of clutches and sperm storage in the promiscuous green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Mol Ecol, 7: 575–584.
Galbraith, D. A. (1993). Multiple paternity and sperm storage in turtles. Herpetol J, 3: 117–123.
Galbraith, D. A., White, B. N., Brooks, R. J. and Boag, P. T. (1993). Multiple paternity in clutches of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) detected using DNA fingerprints. Can J Zool, 71: 318–324.
Gist, D. H. and Congdon, J. D. (1998). Oviductal sperm storage as a reproductive tactic of turtles. J Exp Zool, 282: 526–534.
Gist, D. H. and Jones, J. M. (1989). Sperm storage within the oviduct of turtles. J Morph, 199: 379–384.
Gowaty, P. A. and Bridges, W. C. (1991). Behavioral, demographic, and environmental correlates of extrapair fertilizations in eastern bluebirds, Sialia sialis. Behav Ecol, 2: 339–350.
Gullberg, A., Olsson, M. and Tegelström, H. (1997). Male mating success, reproductive success and multiple paternity in a natural population of sand lizards: behavioral and molecular data. Mol Ecol, 6: 105–112.
Harry, J. L. and Briscoe, D. A. (1988). Multiple paternity in the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). J Hered, 79: 96–99.
Hasselquist, D., Bensch, S. and von Schantz, T. (1996). Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature, 381: 229–232.
Howarth, B. (1974). Sperm storage as a function of the female reproductive tract. In: Johnson, A. D. and Foley, C. E. (eds). The Oviduct and its Functions, pp. 237–270. Academic Press, New York.
Jamieson, A. and Taylor, S. T. C. S. (1997). Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Anim Genet, 28: 397–400.
Janzen, F. J. (1994). Climate change and temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 91: 7487–7490.
Kvarnemo, C., Moore, G. I., Jones, A. G., Nelson, W. S. and Avise, J. C. (2000). Monogamous pair-bonds and mate switching in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus subelongatus. J Evol Biol, 13: 882–888, 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00228.x.
Macculloch, R. D. and Secoy, D. M. (1983). Movement in a river population of Chrysemys picta belli in southern Saskatchewan. J Herpetol, 17: 283–285.
Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. and Håkansson, T. (1992). Why do female adders copulate so frequently?. Nature, 355: 440–441.
Morjan, C. L. and Janzen, F. J. Why does temperature-dependent sex determination persist?. An empirical test using turtles, submitted.
Olsson, M. and Madsen, T. (1998). Sexual selection and sperm competition in reptiles. In: Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (eds). Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, pp. 503–577. Academic Press, San Diego.
Oring, L. W., Fleischer, R. C., Reed, J. M. and Marsden, K. E. (1992). Cuckoldry through stored sperm in the sequentially polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Nature, 359: 631–633.
Palmer, K. S., Rostal, D. C., Grumbles, J. S. and Mulvey, M. (1998). Long term sperm storage in the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Copeia, 3: 702–705.
Parker, G. A. (1994). Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In: Smith, R. L. (ed.). Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems, pp. 2–55. Academic Press, New York.
Pearse, D. E., Eckerman, C. M., Janzen, F. J. and Avise, J. C. A genetic analogue of ‘mark-recapture’ methods for estimating local population size: an approach based on molecular parentage assessments. submitted.
Raymond, M. and Rousset, F. (1995). GENEPOP: population genetic software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered, 86: 248–249.
Reinhardt, K., Köhler, G. and Schumacher, J. (1999). Females of the grasshopper Chorthippus parallelus (Zett.) do not remate for fresh sperm. Proc Roy Soc B, 266: 2003–2009.
Seutin, G., White, B. N. and Boag, P. T. (1991). Preservation of avian blood and tissue samples for DNA analyses. Can J Zool, 69: 82–90.
Smith, R. L. (ed.) (1984). Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. Academic Press, New York.
Acknowledgements
Field work was supported by NSF grants to FJJ. Genetic work was supported by a Fellowship to JCA from the Pew Foundation, and by funds from the University of Georgia. Animal use followed the ethical guidelines approved by the Iowa State University IUCUC (permit no. 1-9-4094-1-J). We thank the past and present members of the Janzen laboratory for collecting samples in the field, and A. Reida and C. M. Morjan for laboratory assistance. The manuscript was greatly improved by comments from members of the Avise laboratory and two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pearse, D., Janzen, F. & Avise, J. Genetic markers substantiate long-term storage and utilization of sperm by female painted turtles. Heredity 86, 378–384 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00841.x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00841.x
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Histological findings of sperm storage in green turtle (Chelonia mydas) oviduct
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
Understanding what we cannot see: a genetic approach to the mating system of the Southern Lanternshark, Etmopterus granulosus
Marine Biology (2020)
-
Multiple paternity in a Pacific marine turtle population: maternal attributes, offspring outcomes and demographic inferences
Marine Biology (2018)
-
Androgen-related sperm storage in oviduct of Chinese Soft-Shelled Turtle in vivo during annual cycle
Scientific Reports (2016)
-
When the shoe doesn’t fit: applying conservation unit concepts to western painted turtles at their northern periphery
Conservation Genetics (2014)