https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323120344.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

First evidence found that 'cryptic female choice' is adaptive

Date:
March 23, 2016
Source:
University of Otago
Summary:
Researchers studying chinook salmon have provided the first evidence that 'cryptic female choice' (CFC) enhances fertilization success and embryo survival. Cryptic female choice involves females using physical or chemical mechanisms to control which male fertilizes their eggs after mating, and is known to occur in a number of species.

To put that into a human context, there was apparently some research in the 1950s that was trying to elucidate blood-type inheritance. They would get blood types of newborns and (logically) the parents.

Problem was, something like a quarter of the children could not have had the named father. For some reason, the research was hidden away for quite a while.....

Mother apparently knows what she wants, in fish and people.

Makes one wonder about impacts of the selection process in the hatchery.

Are there physical characteristics the hen makes in the stream that might play into the selection process that might be implemented in the hatchery?

Just more evidence that the best salmon hatchery on the planet is a healthy, fully functioning river.

Is there an open access link? I can't get to the link now.

I am wondering if the Kiwi's were studying 'their' own nooks that were derived from the Sac river stock in California?

Another try with the link and the body of the article with a reference

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323120344.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29


Researchers from New Zealand's University of Otago studying chinook salmon have provided the first evidence that "cryptic female choice" (CFC) enhances fertilisation success and embryo survival.

Cryptic female choice involves females using physical or chemical mechanisms to control which male fertilises their eggs after mating, and is known to occur in a number of species.

In 2008, Department of Anatomy researchers Dr Patrice Rosengrave and Professor Neil Gemmell were the first to show that CFC occurred in salmon. When these fish spawn, eggs and sperm are shed simultaneously into the surrounding water with ovarian fluid being secreted with the eggs.

They demonstrated ovarian fluid helped or hindered sperm swiftness depending on the male it came from.

Now, after conducting a series of competitive and non-competitive fertilisation experiments, the pair and colleagues have provided the first evidence that CFC contributes to reproductive success.

Dr Rosengrave says they found that not only does a particular female's OF give a bigger boost to some male's sperm and not others, these speedier sperm have a significantly higher chance of winning the race to fertilise eggs and the resulting offspring have a better survival rate as embryos.

"Additionally, after assessing the genetic quality of the males we found embryo survival was linked to being sired by higher quality fathers," she says.

The findings may have wider implications for our understanding of animal, or even human, reproduction, she adds.

"There could well be equivalent mechanisms at play in environments such as mucous on vaginal or uterine walls."

The research, which was supported by the Marsden Fund of New Zealand, appears in the UK journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Otago. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

Patrice Rosengrave, Robert Montgomerie, Neil Gemmell. Cryptic female choice enhances fertilization success and embryo survival in chinook salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016; 283 (1827): 20160001 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0001

Looks like they used Kiwi nooks.

And it's completely free. No taxpayer or ratepayer dollars needed. Nothing to break or clog. No need for human engineering or biologist tinkering.

So give that man a gold star!

The big lie is that habitat is free. There are uses foregone such as water not divert, electricity not generated, tree not cut, floodplains not developed, and so on.

There is a huge societal cost, generally borne by the landowner, to produce those fish.

Not saying we should produce the fish, just that it is by no means free.