Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:52:25.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-mating spermatophore storage strategies in two species of crayfish: implications for broodstock management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

B. Yazicioglu ,
A. Kouba ,
P. Kozák  and
H. Niksirat
B. Yazicioglu
Affiliation:
South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia inČeské Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
A. Kouba
Affiliation:
South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia inČeské Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
P. Kozák
Affiliation:
South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia inČeské Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
H. Niksirat*
Affiliation:
South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia inČeské Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
*
†E-mail: niksirat@frov.jcu.cz, h_niksirat@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Female crayfish stores male gametes after mating until the beginning of egg laying and fertilization. The aim of the present study was to investigate the duration of post-mating spermatophore storage as well as the timing and temperature of spawning in two crayfish species of economic importance, namely the signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus and the noble crayfish Astacus astacus. Results showed that the average duration of the post-mating spermatophore storage is significantly (P<0.05) longer in the noble crayfish (34.6±1.7 days, range: 19 to 60 days) than the signal crayfish (3.9±0.5 days, range: 1 to 18 days). The highest percentages of the post-mating spermatophore storage duration in the signal crayfish (46.5%) and the noble crayfish (44.5%) were 1 and 31 to 40 days, respectively. While there is an overlap in the timings of mating and egg laying in the signal crayfish, these two reproductive processes were not observed at the same days in the noble crayfish and there was at least 2 weeks interval between last mating and first egg laying individuals. Average mating and egg laying temperatures were significantly (P<0.05) higher in the signal crayfish than the noble crayfish. The average temperatures for mating in both species were significantly (P<0.05) higher than the temperatures that they utilized for egg laying. In conclusion, female noble crayfish stores post-mating spermatophores a longer duration compared with the signal crayfish. Also, the signal crayfish mates and lays egg in temperatures that are higher than the noble crayfish. Spawning season is shorter in the signal crayfish compared with the noble crayfish. The results of present study provide information contributing to the crayfish broodstock management in aquaculture.

Keywords

crustaceandecapodanoble crayfishsignal crayfishsperm storage
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 554 - 558
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfaro, J, Ulate, K and Vargas, M 2007. Sperm maturation and capacitation in the open thelycum shrimp Litopenaeus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Penaeoidea). Aquaculture 270, 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aungsuchawan, S, Browdy, CL and Withyachumnarnkul, B 2011. Sperm capacitation of the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei . Aquaculture Research 42, 188–195.Google Scholar
Bauer, RT 1986. Phylogenetic trends in sperm transfer and storage complexity in decapod crustaceans. Journal of Crustacean Biology 6, 313–325.Google Scholar
Becker, C, Brandis, D and Storch, V 2011. Morphology of the female reproductive system of European pea crabs (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura, Pinnotheridae). Journal of Morphology 272, 12–26.Google Scholar
Buřič, M, Kouba, A and Kozák, P 2013. Reproductive plasticity in freshwater invader: from long-term sperm storage to parthenogenesis. PLoS One 8, e77597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cossins, A 2012. Temperature biology of animals. Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin.Google Scholar
Crandall, KA and Buhay, JE 2008. Global diversity of crayfish (Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae-Decapoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595, 295–301.Google Scholar
Ellis, CD, Hodgson, DJ, Andre, C, Sørdalen, TK, Knutsen, H and Griffiths, AGF 2015. Genotype reconstruction of paternity in European lobsters (Homarus gammarus). PLoS One 10, e0139585.Google Scholar
Factor, JR 1995. Biology of the lobster Homarus americanus . Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Gosselin, T, Sainte-Marie, B and Bernatchez, L 2005. Geographic variation of multiple paternity in the American lobster, Homarus americanus . Molecular Ecology 14, 1517–1525.Google Scholar
Hamr, P 2002. Orconectes, crayfish of commercial importance. In Biology of freshwater crayfish (ed. D Holdich), pp 585–603. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hines, AH, Jivoff, PR, Bushmann, PJ, Van Montfrans, J, Reed, SA, Wolcott, DL and Wolcot, TG 2003. Evidence for sperm limitation in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus . Bulletin of Marine Science 72, 287–310.Google Scholar
Holdich, DM, Reynolds, JD, Souty-Grosset, C and Sibley, PJ 2009. A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 11, 394–395.Google Scholar
Holt, WV 2011. Mechanisms of sperm storage in the female reproductive tract: an interspecies comparison. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 46, 68–74.Google Scholar
Holt, WV and Lloyd, RE 2010. Sperm storage in the vertebrate female reproductive tract: how does it work so well? Theriogenology 73, 713–722.Google Scholar
Jensen, PC and Bentzen, P 2012. A molecular dissection of the mating system of the Dungeness crab, Metacarcinus magister (Brachyura: Cancridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 32, 443–456.Google Scholar
Kouba, A, Niksirat, H and Bláha, M 2015. Comparative ultrastructure of spermatozoa of the redclaw Cherax quadricarinatus and the yabby Cherax destructor (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Micron 69, 56–61.Google Scholar
Lewis, SD 2002. Pacifastacus, crayfish of commercial importance. In Biology of freshwater crayfish (ed. D Holdich), pp 511–534. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Millikin, MR and Williams, AB 1984. Synopsis of biological data on the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. NOAA Technical Report, FAO Fisheries Synopsis 138, 39–40.Google Scholar
Moyano, MS, Gavio, MA and Cuartas, EI 2009. Morphology and function of the reproductive tract of the spider crab Libinia spinosa (Crustacea, Brachyura, Majoidea): pattern of sperm storage. Helgoland Marine Research 64, 213.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, James, P, Andersson, L, Kouba, A and Kozák, P 2015a. Label-free protein quantification in freshly ejaculated versus post-mating spermatophores of the noble crayfish Astacus astacus . Journal of Proteomics 123, 70–77.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H and Kouba, A 2016. Subcellular localization of calcium deposits in the noble crayfish Astacus astacus spermatophore: implications for post-mating spermatophore hardening and spermatozoon maturation. Journal of Morphology 277, 445–452.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, Kouba, A and Kozák, P 2014. Post-mating morphological changes in the spermatozoon and spermatophore wall of the crayfish Astacus leptodactylus: insight into a non-motile spermatozoon. Animal Reproduction Science 149, 325–334.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, Kouba, A and Kozák, P 2015b. Ultrastructure of egg activation and cortical reaction in the noble crayfish Astacus astacus . Micron 68, 115–121.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, Kouba, A, Psenicka, M, Kuklina, I and Kozák, P 2013a. Ultrastructure of spermatozoa from three genera of crayfish Orconectes, Procambarus and Astacus (Decapoda: Astacidea): new findings and comparisons. Zoologischer Anzeiger 252, 226–233.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, Kouba, A, Rodina, M and Kozák, P 2013b. Comparative ultrastructure of the spermatozoa of three crayfish species: Austropotamobius torrentium, Pacifastacus leniusculus, and Astacus astacus (Decapoda: Astacidae). Journal of Morphology 274, 750–758.Google Scholar
Niksirat, H, Vancová, M, Andersson, L, James, P, Kouba, A and Kozák, P 2016. Protein modification in the post-mating spermatophore of the signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus: insight into the tyrosine phosphorylation in a non-motile spermatozoon. Animal Reproduction Science 172, 123–130.Google Scholar
Paul, AJ 1984. Mating frequency and viability of stored sperm in the Tanner crab Chionoecetes bairdi (Decapoda, Majidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 4, 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainte-Marie, B, Gosselin, T, Sevigny, JM and Urbani, N 2008. The snow crab mating system: Opportunity for natural and unnatural selection in a changing environment. Bulletin of Marine Science 83, 131–161.Google Scholar
Skurdal, J and Taugbøl, T 2002. Astacus, crayfish of commercial importance. In Biology of freshwater crayfish (ed. D Holdich), pp 467–503. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Taylor, CA, Schuster, GA, Cooper, JE, Di Stephano, RJ, Eversole, AG, Hamr, P, Hobbs, HH Jr, Robinson, HW, Skelton, CE and Thoma, RF 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32, 372–389.Google Scholar
Taylor, ML, Price, TAR and Wedell, N 2014. Polyandry in nature: a global analysis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 376–383.Google Scholar
Tudge, CC 2009. Spermatozoal morphology and its bearing on decapod phylogeny. In Decapod Crustacean Phylogenetics (ed. JW Martin, A Crandall and DL Felder), pp 101–119. Francis & Taylor, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Vanichviriyakit, R, Kruevaisayawan, H, Weerachatyanukul, W, Tawipreeda, P, Withyachumnarnkul, B, Pratoomchat, B, Chavade, JJ and Sobhon, P 2004. Molecular modification of Penaeus monodon sperm in female thelycum and its consequent responses. Molecular Reproduction and Development 69, 356–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, G 2016. Structural specialities, curiosities and record-breaking features of crustacean reproduction. Journal of Morphology 277, 1399–1422.Google Scholar
Wolcott, DL, Wynne, BHC and Thomas, GW 2005. Early events in seminal fluid and sperm storage in the female blue crab Callinectes sapidus Rathbun: effects of male mating history, male size, and season. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319, 43–55.Google Scholar
Yazicioglu, B, Hamr, P, Kozák, P, Kouba, A and Niksirat, H 2016. Fine structure of the spermatozoon in three species of Cambaridae (Arthropoda: Crustacea: Decapoda) Cambarus robustus, Orconectes propinquus and Orconectes rusticus: a comparative biometrical study. PeerJ 4, e2363.Google Scholar