in

# Bateman gradients from first principles

### Model 1: Evolution of multiple mating and mate monopolisation under ancestral monogamy

In all models, I assume a large population with a 1:1 sex ratio. I begin with what is possibly the simplest model set-up for deriving Bateman functions in a scenario that is completely symmetrical aside from gamete number. Assume a monogamous, externally fertilising population where parents pair up and release their gametes into a nest. That is, every individual in the initial population participates in exactly one fertilisation event (the equivalent of a mating). Now consider a mutant individual that can attract multiple mates of the opposite type to release gametes into its nest, with no competition from other individuals of its own type. This simple set-up avoids asymmetries arising from internal fertilisation, and the complication of direct gamete competition for the multiply mating mutant individual (which is examined in Models 2–3), placing focus directly on the core of the problem: the asymmetry arising in fertilisation from imbalanced gamete numbers. All gametes are released in one burst by all individuals, but the focal individual may achieve ‘multiple matings’ simply by monopolising multiple mates at its nest. The reproductive success of the focal individual is then equivalent to the number of fertilisations that take place in that nest. Our aim is to understand how the reproductive success of an individual deviating from the monogamous population strategy and instead mating with (hat{m}) individuals of the opposite type is altered. A strong positive relationship between (hat{m}) and reproductive success then indicates a steep Bateman gradient. If Bateman’s assertion is correct, the resulting gradient should be steeper for the type that produces the larger number of gametes. Note that there is a game-theoretical25 flavour to this setting, where the focus is on the fitness of a rare mutant in a population with a fixed resident strategy.

The two types are labelled with x and y, which could correspond to the two sexes, depending on what gamete numbers are assigned to them. The number of gametes produced by a single individual is labelled nx and ny, and the total number of gametes in a nest (or more generally, a fertilisation arena which could be internal or external) is labelled with Nx and Ny. To compute the number of fertilisations in a nest with a total of Nx and Ny gametes, I use a fertilisation function first derived by Togashi et al.24 purely from biophysical principles, treating the two gamete types symmetrically, with no pre-existing assumptions about differences between females and males or their gametes (for a broader context and comparison to other functions, see Table 1 and function F7 in19). Any sex-specific differences arise only retrospectively after different gamete numbers are assigned to x and y of which either one could be male or female. The fertilisation function is (fleft({N}_{x},{N}_{y}right)={N}_{x}{N}_{y}frac{{e}^{a{N}_{x}}-{e}^{a{N}_{y}}}{{{N}_{x}e}^{a{N}_{x}}-{N}_{y}{e}^{a{N}_{y}}}), where a is a parameter controlling fertilisation efficiency (for the special case Nx = Ny the function is defined as (fleft({N}_{x},{N}_{y}right)=frac{a{N}_{x}^{2}}{1+a{N}_{x}})19,24, which is also the limit of f when Ny → Nx).

In a monogamous resident pair, we have simply Nx = nx and Ny = ny. But if a mutant individual of type x is able to attract (hat{m}) fertilisation partners of type y, then for that individual ({N}_{y}=hat{m}{n}_{y}), and the corresponding Bateman function is

$${b}_{x}left(hat{m}right)=fleft({N}_{x},{N}_{y}right)=fleft({n}_{x},hat{m}{n}_{y}right)$$

(1)

where the fertilisation function f is as described above. Because of symmetry, the corresponding function for y is found simply by swapping x and y. This function can reproduce the characteristic Bateman gradient asymmetry as gamete numbers diverge (progressing from isogamy to anisogamy in Fig. 1), showing how Bateman’s assertion follows from biophysical effects that arise from unequal numbers of fusing particles: the fertilisation function f is derived solely from such biophysical effects, not from any sex-specific assumptions. Equation (1) makes no reference to sexes, and they only become specified when values are assigned to nx and ny. For example, if nx = 10 and ny = 10,000, the female Bateman function is ({b}_{x}left(hat{m}right)) and the male Bateman function ({b}_{y}left(hat{m}right)), where for the latter all xs in Eq. (1) are replaced with ys and vice versa. The labels x and y are truly just labels. While there are inevitably assumptions built into the equations, crucially we can be certain there are no sex-specific assumptions. Yet the typical shapes reminiscent of Bateman gradients arise from the model when different values are specified for nx and ny (Fig. 1).

Gamete limitation changes the results quantitatively so that under conditions of poor fertilisation efficiency a larger imbalance in gamete numbers is needed for Bateman gradients to diverge to a similar extent. However, even under inefficient fertilisation, the Bateman gradients do not reverse.

### Model 2: An external fertiliser model with population-level polygamy and gamete competition

Model 1 presented the simplest possible scenario, where all individuals except a rare mutant mate only once, and gamete competition (sperm competition26, but without assigning either gamete type to be sperm) was thus excluded for the focal mutant individual. Now I generalise from this to a situation that remains entirely symmetrical, but where the resident number of matings can take on any value, and then derive the Bateman function for a rare mutant that deviates from this population-level value. This set-up allows for gamete competition for the focal mutant individual, a crucial addition because of the empirical and theoretical importance of sperm competition26, as well as earlier theory suggesting that polyandry decreases the sex difference in Bateman gradients2.

The biological set-up is such that there is a large population and a large number of patches (fertilisation arenas) where multiple individuals of both sexes can release their gametes for fertilisation. After all individuals have released their gametes, those in each patch mix freely and fertilisations take place randomly. Set up in this way, the model is again identical from the perspective of both sexes, and gamete number can be isolated as the sole possible causal factor in any subsequent differences that may arise, extending from the initially monogamous and gamete competition-free scenario of Model 1. All individuals of both sexes are assumed to initially have the same strategy: to divide their nx or ny gametes equally between m patches, and distribute themselves in such a way that gametes from m individuals of each type release gametes into each patch (the number of individuals of each sex per patch need not necessarily be strictly equal to m, but this is the simplest assumption to account for the fact that gamete competition tends to increase with multiple ‘matings’). Now, if a rare x mutant divides its gametes evenly into (hat{m}) randomly selected patches, its gamete number per patch and consequently competitiveness in each patch is altered. Therefore, gametes of a mutant of type x will gain, on average, a fraction ({c}_{x}=left({n}_{x}/hat{m}right)/{N}_{x}) of the fertilisations in that patch, where ({N}_{x}={n}_{x}/hat{m}+(m-1){n}_{x}/m). To compute the number of realised fertilisations in a patch, I use the same fertilisation function as in Model 1, where the mutant number of gametes in a patch is Nx as above and the number of gametes of the opposite type is ({N}_{y}=mfrac{{n}_{y}}{m}={n}_{y}). All the components are now in place to write down the Bateman function corresponding to this scenario, for a mutant of type x:

$${b}_{x}left(hat{m},mright)=hat{m}{c}_{x}fleft({N}_{x},{N}_{y}right)$$

(2)

where cx, Nx and Ny are as defined above, and the fertilisation function f is as in Model 1. For completeness, define bx(0, m) = 0, which is necessarily true, but useful to define separately because division by 0 renders Eq. (2) formally undefined when (hat{m}=0).

As in Model 1, Eq. (2) makes no reference to sexes, and they only become specified when values are assigned to nx and ny (Fig. 2).

### Model 3: An internal fertiliser model

Models 1–2 were set up with the central aim of full symmetry and exclusion of any sex-specific assumptions. Internal fertilisation breaks this symmetry by introducing a sex-specific assumption other than gamete number. Bateman gradients are, however, most commonly applied to situations with internal fertilisation where females are gamete recipients and males are gamete donors27. I therefore construct a model accounting for internal fertilisation. Where Eqs. (1) and (2) allowed no sex differences aside from gamete number, here I additionally consider the fact that females receive gametes while males donate them.

As in model 2, there is a very large population, and I assume that in the resident population, all females and males mate exactly m times. It is then considered how a rare mutant individual’s (of either sex) fitness depends on its number of matings (hat{m}).

I use the same fertilisation function as in Models 1-2. Consider first the female perspective (labelled with x). A female produces nx gametes and retains them internally. Each female mates with m males, who also mate with m females, dividing their gametes evenly over these matings. Therefore a mutant female receives (hat{m}frac{{n}_{y}}{m}) male gametes, and her reproductive success is

$${b}_{x}left(hat{m},mright)=fleft({n}_{x},hat{m}frac{{n}_{y}}{m}right)$$

(3)

A mutant male, on the other hand, mates with (hat{m}) females, each of which mates with m−1 additional males. Therefore, the mutant male’s mating partners will receive a total of ({{N}_{y}=n}_{y}/hat{m}+(m-1){n}_{y}/{m}) male gametes. Thus, the mutant male gains a fraction ({c}_{y}=left({n}_{y}/hat{m}right)/{N}_{y}) of the fertilisations with each female, while the total reproductive success per female is f(nx,Ny). The mutant male’s reproductive success is therefore

$${b}_{y}left(hat{m},mright)=hat{m}{c}_{y}fleft({n}_{x},{N}_{y}right)$$

(4)

To avoid division by 0, we can again define by (0, m) = 0, analogous to Model 2. In contrast to Models 1–2, there are now separate equations for each sex because of the additional sex-specific assumption of internal fertilisation, but no further sex-specific assumptions are used in their derivation. Visually the Bateman functions (Fig. 3) are nevertheless very similar to Model 2, and again reproduce the sex-specific shapes first proposed by Bateman1 when fertilisation is efficient. However, an interesting exception arises when relatively weak asymmetry in gamete numbers is combined with inefficient fertilisation and gamete limitation. When these conditions are combined with internal fertilisation, Bateman gradients can theoretically be reversed.

Source: Ecology - nature.com