Molecular Ecology (2004) 13, 1965–1974
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02178.x
Predominance of genetic monogamy by females in a
hammerhead shark, Sphyrna tiburo: implications for shark
conservation
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
D E M I A N D . C H A P M A N ,* P A U L O A . P R O D Ö H L ,† J A M E S G E L S L E I C H T E R ,‡ C H A R L E S A . M A N I R E ‡
and M A H M O O D S . S H I V J I *
*Guy Harvey Research Institute, Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University, 8000 North Ocean Drive, Dania Beach,
FL 33004, USA, †School of Biology and Biochemistry, The Queen’s University of Belfast, MBC, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL,
N. Ireland, UK, ‡Elasmobranch Physiology and Environmental Biology Program, Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory,
1600 Ken Thompson Pkwy, Sarasota, FL 34263, USA
Abstract
There is growing interest in the mating systems of sharks and their relatives (Class Chondrichthyes) because these ancient fishes occupy a key position in vertebrate phylogeny and
are increasingly in need of conservation due to widespread overexploitation. Based on
precious few genetic and field observational studies, current speculation is that polyandrous
mating strategies and multiple paternity may be common in sharks as they are in most other
vertebrates. Here, we test this hypothesis by examining the genetic mating system of the
bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, using microsatellite DNA profiling of 22 litters (22
mothers, 188 embryos genotyped at four polymorphic loci) obtained from multiple locations
along the west coast of Florida. Contrary to expectations based on the ability of female S. tiburo
to store sperm, the social nature of this species and the 100% multiple paternity observed
in two other coastal shark species, over 81% of sampled bonnethead females produced
litters sired by a single male (i.e. genetic monogamy). When multiple paternity occurred in
S. tiburo, there was an indication of increased incidence in larger mothers with bigger litters. Our data suggest that sharks may exhibit complex genetic mating systems with a high
degree of interspecific variability, and as a result some species may be more susceptible to
loss of genetic variation in the face of escalating fishing pressure. Based on these findings,
we suggest that knowledge of elasmobranch mating systems should be an important
component of conservation and management programmes for these heavily exploited species.
Keywords: bonnethead shark, conservation, genetic monogamy, mating system, microsatellite
DNA profiling, multiple paternity, Sphyrna tiburo
Received 27 October 2003; revision received 15 January 2004; accepted 13 February 2004
Introduction
The relatively recent development and application of
modern variable number of tandem repeat loci (VNTR)
DNA profiling methodologies to studies of parentage in
natural populations has initiated several important paradigm
shifts in the field of reproductive biology (Avise 1994;
Birkhead & Moller 1998; Birkhead 2000; Avise et al. 2002).
Among the most prominent of these shifts is the realization
that females of most animal species, even those believed to
Correspondence: Mahmood S. Shivji. Fax: 954 262 4098; E-mail:
mahmood@nova.edu
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
be ‘socially’ monogamous, copulate routinely with multiple
males (polyandry) and often produce broods composed of
both full and half-sibs (i.e. multiple paternity) (Birkhead &
Moller 1998; Birkhead 2000). While many studies have
documented some level of polyandry with multiple paternity
in a wide range of vertebrates, its general evolutionary
significance and the factors which cause it to vary in frequency among related taxa continue to be debated vigorously
(Birkhead 2000; Jennions & Petrie 2000; Tregenza & Wedell
2000; Pearse & Avise 2001; Tregenza & Wedell 2002).
Although the elasmobranch fishes (sharks and batoids)
provide the earliest evidence of the development of several
advanced reproductive traits found in higher vertebrates
1966 D . D . C H A P M A N E T A L .
(e.g. internal fertilization and amniote-like patterns of
reproductive tract development), our understanding of
mating systems in this lineage is still very limited (Ohta et al.
2000; Feldheim et al. 2001, 2002; Saville et al. 2002). This is
not entirely surprising, given the many obvious logistical
problems associated with studying this group of fishes
in their natural environment. The recent development of
molecular tools which allow unambiguous identification
of individuals and their relationships are providing new
opportunities to elucidate aspects of elasmobranch reproductive behaviour not easily observable in the wild
(Feldheim et al. 2002).
An important biological question in sharks that can now
be addressed is related to their mating systems, the understanding of which is now being recognized as a fundamental requirement for any long-term, effective conservation
or fisheries management strategy (Rowe & Hutchings 2003).
This knowledge is particularly important for strongly Kselected species (i.e. slow growth rate, late sexual maturation,
low fecundity), because their mating system will influence
a number of population sustainability factors ranging from
the relative reproductive success of individuals (i.e. their
individual fitness) to the maintenance of population genetic
diversity and consequently future evolutionary potential
of the entire species (Pearse & Avise 2001; Avise et al. 2002;
Frankham et al. 2002; Rowe & Hutchings 2003). Given that
the current level of shark exploitation worldwide is far
exceeding the reproductive capacity of many species and
resulting in serious declines in some populations (Manire
& Gruber 1990; Baum et al. 2003; Myers & Worm 2003),
development of urgently needed and effective conservation measures will benefit from a more thorough understanding of shark mating systems.
Field observations suggest that group reproductive
behaviour and polyandrous copulations by females in a
single mating event may be common in some sharks and
batoids (Carrier et al. 1994; Yano et al. 1999; Pratt & Carrier
2001; Chapman et al. 2003). Several species of requiem and
hammerhead sharks (families Carcharhinidae and Sphyrnidae, respectively) are also known to store sperm for
several months after copulation, raising the possibility that
viable sperm from multiple males can accumulate over a
protracted mating season and be available for delayed
fertilization (Pratt 1993; Manire et al. 1995). Despite these
life-history strategies that might seem conducive to multiple paternity, the latter has been documented in only two
shark species, the lemon Negaprion brevirostris and nurse
shark Ginglymostoma cirratum. In both these cases, the
study animals were from small populations (< 100 breeding animals) and sampled from a single location from
insular breeding grounds in the tropical western Atlantic
(Ohta et al. 2000; Feldheim et al. 2001, 2002; Saville et al.
2002; E. Heist, pers. comm.). Furthermore, in both species
(especially so with the nonmigratory G. cirratum), some
individuals of both sexes appear to maintain long-term site
fidelity (‘philopatry’) to the sampled breeding grounds
(Pratt & Carrier 2001; Feldheim et al. 2002; Saville et al.
2002). The observed frequency of multiple paternity was
very high in both N. brevirostris and G. cirratum (100% of 14
and nine litters, respectively, with the number of estimated
sires per litter ranging from two to five). Feldheim et al.
(2002) and Saville et al. (2002) have suggested that under
the above population conditions, polyandry with multiple
paternity may improve the reproductive fitness of individual females by increasing the genetic diversity of their
litters and reducing the likelihood of producing offspring
with genetically incompatible (e.g. related) males.
To contribute new information on the prevalence and
evolutionary significance of polyandry and multiple paternity in sharks, we have studied in detail the genetic mating system of a common species, the bonnethead shark,
Sphyrna tiburo, the smallest of eight living members of the
family Sphyrnidae (hammerheads). S. tiburo is common in
the subtropical to tropical western Atlantic, and due to their
accessibility in coastal, estuarine breeding grounds, the
species is among the best studied of the elasmobranch
fishes ( Myrberg & Gruber 1974; Parsons 1993a,b; Manire
et al. 1995; Cortes & Parsons 1996; Carlson & Parsons 1997;
Gelsleichter et al. 2003; Nichols et al. 2003). Given that S.
tiburo are highly social ( Myrberg & Gruber 1974), females
store sperm for at least 5 months (Manire et al. 1995) and
they often occur in the same breeding areas as N. brevirostris
and G. cirratum, we hypothesized that this species would
also exhibit a high degree of polyandry and multiple paternity. Here, we report an assessment of parentage in S. tiburo
using microsatellite DNA profiling on the largest sample
of litters (n = 22) examined directly for this purpose for any
elasmobranch, and discuss the implications of our findings
for the conservation and genetic management of sharks.
Materials and methods
Sample collection/DNA profiling
Twenty-two S. tiburo mother–litter groups (hereafter referred
to as ‘families’) were collected from five breeding grounds
along the entire length of the west coast of Florida, USA
(Fig. 1). Gravid females were captured using 360-m long, 3m deep monofilament gillnets (12 cm stretch mesh) over 4
years from 1999 to 2002, and sacrificed to obtain all embryos.
Fin clips were taken from each female and all her embryos
(mean 8.5, range 3–18 embryos), placed immediately into
labelled vials containing 95% reagent grade ethanol and
stored in an ice-chest. The total length (TL) of all but three
females was measured. Female body size, capture location
and litter size of each family is given in Table 1. In order to
obtain relevant population genetic data (i.e. allelic diversity,
allele frequency distributions), fin-clip samples were also
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
G E N E T I C M A T I N G S Y S T E M I N A H A M M E R H E A D S H A R K 1967
Table 1 S. tiburo mother–litter groups analysed in this study. – =
data not recorded
Fig. 1 Collection locations of S. tiburo mother–litter groups (solid
circles) from Florida’s Gulf coast (n = 22). Collection sites from
north to south are: Panama City, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,
Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay. Numbers beside symbols equal
sample sizes. Also shown are locations of population samples
from this region (open triangles; n = 97).
taken from large juvenile and adult male and nongravid
female S. tiburo captured in these nets (n = 97). These sharks
were generally tagged and released alive after sample
collection. All biopsy samples were then transported to
the laboratory where they were stored at 4 °C until required for analyses. DNA extractions (from 25 mg of tissue
cut from the fin biopsy with a sterile razor blade) were
carried out with the DNeasy Tissue Kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia,
CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Extracted DNA was checked for concentration using
a 96-well microtitre plate reader (µ-Quant, BioTek Instruments, Winooski, VT, USA) and the DNA concentration
subsequently standardized to 50 ng/µL. DNA from each
specimen was then checked on 0.8% 1× TBE agarose gels
containing ethidium bromide for DNA quality and confirmation of concentration.
Family
ID number
Female total
length (TL cm)
Litter size
Sampling location
18
16
14
24
33
34
35
36
37
31
30
32
15
17
13
25
26
19
23
12
21
29
72
—
—
100
73
84
86.5
86
94
98
98
92
75
84
78
76
76
75
83
93.5
84
—
8
9
12
10
9
10
6
6
9
18
13
12
4
8
4
5
6
3
8
17
8
3
Panama City
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Sarasota Bay
Charlotte Harbor
Charlotte Harbor
Charlotte Harbor
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
Florida Bay
All specimens were screened for four microsatellite loci
on a Li-Cor™ dual laser automated DNA analyser. The
approach used for isolation of microsatellite markers followed the protocol described by Kijas et al. (1994) for microsatellite enrichment using biotinylated oligonucleotides
with modifications (details available upon request to P.A.
Prodöhl). Three of these markers (Sti01, Sti04 and Sti10) were
specifically isolated from a S. tiburo enriched microsatellite
library. A fourth informative marker (Pgl02) was isolated
from a blue shark (Prionace glauca) microsatellite enriched
library also developed in our research group as part of a
parallel study on global population structure of this species. Microsatellite primer details are provided in Table 2.
Primer name-sequence
Size (bp)
Ta (°C)
cycl. #
Pgl02F 5′-ACCCGACTCGCCAGGATTCACT-3′*
Pgl02R 5′-CCCGAGTCACTCACCGC-3′
132
55
24
Sti01F 5′-CCAACAGGATGGGAAGC-3′
Sti01R 5′-CAGATCCTAACCACTTGCTGTGT-3′*
189
58 –56**
24
Sti04F 5′-CTCGGAGGAGAGCGCGTCC-3′*
Sti04R 5′-CTCGATCAGCCGGTCAATGGTCTG-3′
113
55
25
Sti10F 5′-TCTTTCTAGATACCACTCC-3′
Sti10R2 5′-CTTTCCTGAATTTCTAATAC-3′*
246
50
26
*indicates which of the primer pair is IRD labelled
**A touchdown profile was used with 5 cycles of 58 °C followed by 19 cycles at 56 °C.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
Table 2 Primer details of microsatellite loci
used in this study. Size (bp) represents the
size in base-pairs of the cloned allele from
which the primers were designed, Ta (°C)
indicates the annealing temperature, and
cycl. # indicates the number of PCR cycles
used in amplification reactions with this
annealing temperature (denaturation and
extension temperatures were 94° and 72°,
respectively, for all primer sets)
1968 D . D . C H A P M A N E T A L .
Single locus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifications for genotyping in the Li-Cor system were carried
out in 12 µL reaction volume containing 1× Promega Taq
polymerase buffer, 1.5 mm MgCl2 (2.0 mm for Sti10), 100 µm
dNTP, 0.5 –2 pm of each microsatellite primer (Pgl02:
0.5 pm, Sti04: 1 pm, Sti01 and Sti10: 2 pm), 100 ng template
DNA and 0.5 U of Promega Taq DNA polymerase. PCR
cycling conditions consisted of one cycle at 94 °C for 3 min
followed by 24–26 cycles at 94 °C for 1 min, 50 – 54 °C for
1 min, and 72 °C for 1 min (see Table 2 for details). Because
there was a large size range in the alleles of Sti10, the extension time of each PCR cycle was increased to 1.5 min. Following PCR, 4 µL of stop solution (95% formamide, 10 mm
NaOH, 10 mm EDTA, 0.01% pararosaniline) was added to
each 12 µL reaction. Reactions were denatured at 80 °C for
3 – 4 min, and 1 µL was loaded into 25 cm 6% 1× TBE polyacrylamide gels. A commercially available size-standard
ladder for the Li-Cor system (MicroStep-20a, Microzone,
West Sussex, UK) was run adjacent to the samples to estimate the size of allelic fragments. Gels were run on the
Li-Cor system at a constant power of 40 W and at a temperature of about 50 °C for 1–2 h. Genotypic scoring was
carried out using Gene Profiler (Scanalytics Inc., Fairfax,
VA, USA). Eighty per cent of all specimens screened were
genotyped independently by two laboratory personnel to
detect potential scoring errors. Where discrepancies were
found, particular specimens were re-screened for confirmation of genotypes. Although this occurred rarely, it was
essential for data quality and subsequent genetic analysis.
multiple paternity in S. tiburo: (1) two males with equal
breeding success; (2) two males with skewed success (66.7%
and 33.3%), (3) three males with equal breeding success;
and (4) three males with skewed success (57%, 28.5% and
14.5%). As the probability of detecting multiple mating is
also a function of the number of offspring analysed, we ran
prdm simulations with litter sizes ranging from three to 18
(minimum and maximum number of litters observed in
our sample).
Analysis of paternity was carried out by constructing a
multilocus genotype for each embryo, and then subtracting observed maternal alleles for each locus to obtain its
paternally derived alleles. This analysis was initially conducted by eye inspection and subsequently with the help
of the gerud software ( Jones 2001). The occurrence of multiple paternity of a litter was unambiguously established
by the occurrence of more than two paternal alleles across
at least two loci, to allow for the possibility of mutation
at one locus. For any litter where more than two paternal
alleles were observed at only one locus, we used χ2 statistics
to test whether the remaining three loci displayed evidence for significant deviations from expected Mendelian
genotypic ratios. The null hypothesis for this test was that
two alleles observed among a group of litter-mates were
inherited from a single heterozygous father (i.e. with an
expected ratio of the two alleles of 1:1). Where multiple
paternity was detected clearly, the program gerud (Jones
2001) was used to estimate the minimum number of
males.
Statistical analyses
Results
A comprehensive investigation on the population structure
of S. tiburo along the west coast of Florida has revealed no
evidence of genetic differentiation among the population
samples used in the present study, with an overall nonsignificant FST (Weir & Cockerham 1984) value of −0.003
(Chapman, Prodöhl & Shivji, unpubl. data). Thus, all freeliving S. tiburo sampled (n = 119, including all 22 mothers,
but not the embryos) were pooled together as a single
population sample for subsequent analyses. Standard intrapopulation sample genetic variability (e.g. number of alleles,
allelic frequencies, expected and observed heterozygosity)
and exact tests for departure from Hardy–Weinberg
equilibrium (HWE) were computed with genepop version
3.1 (Raymond & Rousset 1995). The power of our microsatellite markers to detect multiple paternity was assessed
using simulations run in the program prdm (Probability to
Detect Multiple Matings, Neff & Pitcher 2002). Following
approaches suggested by Neff & Pitcher (2002) and based
also on the number of sires and degree of paternity skew
observed for the shark species, N. brevirostris and G.
cirratum (Ohta et al. 2000; Feldheim et al. 2001, 2002; Saville
et al. 2002), we simulated four potential scenarios for
Summary statistics for the population sample screened for
the four microsatellite loci are displayed in Tables 3 and 4.
The four marker loci used in this study exhibited moderate
to very high allelic diversity in the population sample (6 –
35 alleles per locus, mean = 13.5, n = 119). Three of the four
microsatellite loci screened were found to be in HWE.
The Sti10 locus, however, exhibited a significant deficit of
heterozygotes (P < 0.01). This locus was characterized by a
Table 3 Allelic diversity (k), observed and expected heterozygosities (Hobs and Hexp) and P-values from Hardy–Weinberg
(HWE) exact tests for homozygote excess at four microsatellite
loci used in this study based on multilocus genotypes of 119
bonnethead sharks from the west coast of Florida
Locus
k
Hobs
Hexp
HWE
Pgl02
Sti01
Sti04
Sti10
Avg.
6
7
6
35
13.5
0.684
0.564
0.509
0.867
0.654
0.675
0.576
0.549
0.962
0.686
P = 0.73
P = 0.54
P = 0.24
P < 0.01
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
G E N E T I C M A T I N G S Y S T E M I N A H A M M E R H E A D S H A R K 1969
Litter size
Mating scenario
(hypothesized paternal skew)
3
6
9
12
15
18
2 males (50:50)
2 males (66.7:33.3)
3 males (33.3:33.3:33.3)
3 males (57:28.5:14.5)
0.43
0.37
0.58
0.49
0.91
0.85
0.97
0.93
0.98
0.95
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
complex repeat region involving mono- and dinucleotide
motif repeats as well as a small number of larger repeat
motifs typical of minisatellite markers. The allelic size
variation observed at this locus was attributed to all three
classes of repeat motifs. Although 46 distinct alleles were
initially found to segregate at this particular locus, to reduce
typing errors and prior to subsequent analyses, alleles
differing by 1 base pair (bp) were pooled together in 2 bp
bin allelic classes. Even with this conservative binning
approach 35 alleles were present at this locus in our population sample (Appendix I).
Thus the Sti10 locus was by far the most polymorphic
marker used in this investigation and also proved to be the
most informative for parentage analysis. Although deviations from HWE could have a number of biological explanations, parentage analyses indicate that in this particular
instance it was due to the occurrence of null alleles. By following the segregation of maternal alleles from an apparently
homozygous mother into her litter, we were able to identify
two unequivocal cases at Sti10 where she was actually
heterozygous for a null allele (i.e. some of her known embryos
appeared not to have inherited any maternal alleles).
Using the analytical procedures of Chakraborty et al. (1992)
and Brookfield (1996), we estimated the frequency of null
alleles in the population sample to be approximately
0.04. Thus, both the deviation from HWE and the two
observed cases of null alleles in our family data set (n = 22)
are not entirely surprising. Because these rare null alleles
can be relatively easily identified and accounted for in
parentage studies, we elected to include the hypervariable
and hence extremely informative locus Sti10 in subsequent
analyses.
Overall, the marker suite provided considerable power
to detect multiple paternity in our sample set (Table 4). As
expected, the prdm increased with the litter size. However,
a litter of as few as six embryos is sufficient obtain a prdm
ranging from 85% to 97% while the examination of nine
embryos (the average for our dataset was 8.5 embryos)
would ensure a prdm ranging from 95% to 99%. Considering that over 77% of the litters examined were comprised
of six or more individuals, the use of these four markers
allowed us to make reliable inferences on the mating system of S. tiburo. Despite the high degree of statistical power
provided by this marker set, 18 of 22 families analysed
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
Table 4 Probability of detecting multiple
paternity (prdm) values for the microsatellite marker set used assuming four
distinct mating scenarios and specific litter
sizes (see text for details)
(81.2%) showed no evidence that more than a single male
was involved in the siring of the respective litter. In three
(families 21, 30, 31; Table 1) of the four remaining litters,
we observed three or four paternal alleles at more than one
locus, providing conclusive evidence of multiple paternity,
with at least two sires being involved in each case. For the
last litter (family 12), although four paternal alleles were
present at Sti10, there was no evidence of additional paternal alleles at the other three loci (i.e. each of the remaining
loci exhibited only two paternal alleles). However, at each
one of these three loci, a significant departure from expected
Mendelian genotypic ratios was observed (χ2, P < 0.05–
0.01 in each of the three tests). Thus, it is likely that this litter also had at least two fathers who shared at least one allele
at Pgl02, Sti01 and Sti04. No similar significant departures
from Mendelian expectations were observed for any of the
single paternity litters (data not shown). The overall proportion of multiple paternity in the 22 litters was therefore
estimated to be 18.8%.
As mentioned previously, a maximum of four paternal
alleles were observed visually at each of the surveyed loci
in the four families showing multiple paternity, suggesting
a minimum of two sires. To estimate more effectively the
number of potential sires involved, we used the program
gerud (Jones 2001) to reconstruct all possible sire genotypes that, in combination with the known maternal genotype, explained the genotypes of individuals comprising a
multisired litter. Three of the four multisired families (21,
30 and 31) had a minimum of two males involved, while a
minimum of three males were required to explain family
12 genotypes. Unfortunately, the relatively low number of
offspring per multisired litter resulted in several distinct
sire solutions for each, preventing meaningful analysis
of possible paternity skews. Screening with additional
microsatellite markers should allow paternity skew to be
addressed in the future.
A positive linear relationship between maternal size and
annual reproductive success (i.e. number of embryos in litter) was observed in the current family data set (R2 = 0.52;
Fig. 2). Furthermore, mothers of multiple paternity litters
were significantly larger (t-test; P < 0.026) and had more
offspring (t-test; P < 0.001) than mothers of single paternity
litters. However, the small number of cases of multiple
paternity observed (four) precludes any major conclusions;
1970 D . D . C H A P M A N E T A L .
Fig. 2 Scatterplot showing the positive relationship between
female body size [total length (TL)] and litter size (number of
embryos). Multiple paternity litters are shown by solid circles.
Single paternity litters are shown by open circles.
additional data from multiple paternity families will be
required to confirm this trend.
Discussion
We have demonstrated conclusively that although multiple
paternity does occur in S. tiburo, most of the sampled
females (estimated over 81%) were genetically monogamous
within the observed reproductive cycle. This provides the
first evidence of a mating system with predominantly single
paternity in elasmobranch fishes, which was unanticipated
in light of the social nature and sperm storage capabilities
of this species ( Myrberg & Gruber 1974; Manire et al. 1995),
and the polyandry and frequent multiple paternity observed
in two other coastal sharks (N. brevirostris and G. cirratum:
Ohta et al. 2000; Feldheim et al. 2001, 2002; Saville et al. 2002;
E. Heist, pers. comm.). The findings of this study highlight once
again that behavioural observations, physiology and phylogeny can be inaccurate predictors of realized animal mating
systems (Avise 1994; Fitzsimmons 1998; Birkhead 2000).
This finding is also surprising, because genetic monogamy by either sex appears to be relatively rare in fishes and
vertebrates generally (Birkhead & Moller 1998; Birkhead
2000). Where genetic monogamy does occur in fishes, it is
usually associated with either social monogamy (e.g. due
to a need for biparental defense of territories and/or care
of offspring: DeWoody et al. 2000; Morley & Balshine 2002)
or very specialized mating systems where males have an
extremely high degree of control over fertilization (e.g. in
male-brooding seahorses; Avise et al. 2002). Because elasmobranchs do not form stable pair bonds after copulation
and do not provide any postnatal parental care to their offspring (Pratt & Carrier 2001), it is especially surprising to
find a predominance of genetic monogamy by females in a
member of this lineage.
We did not detect genetic polygyny (males producing
offspring with multiple females) by individual male S.
tiburo. This can be attributed to the inherent improbability
of sampling more than one litter sired by the same male in
what is thought to be a large population (Parsons 1993a,b).
Given that females are typically genetically monogamous,
the overall genetic mating system of S. tiburo is either predominantly monogamous (males and females both usually
produce offspring with only one partner each reproductive
cycle) or polygynous (males produce offspring with multiple females, females usually produce offspring with only
one male).
Interspecies variation in the extent of multiple paternity
in sharks, like many other animals, could arise through
postcopulatory selective processes rather than actual
differences in their mating behaviour. For example, the
predominance of genetic monogamy in S. tiburo could be
explained if females of this species, such as N. brevirostris
and G. cirratum, are actually sexually polyandrous (i.e.
copulate with multiple males) but have evolved physiological mechanisms which allow them to select sperm from
particular males [e.g. males with genetically compatible
sperm (Zeh & Zeh 1997); for examples of sperm selection
in other taxa see Olsson et al. 1996; Birkhead & Moller 1998;
Stockley 1999; Kraaijevald-Smit et al. 2002]. Alternatively,
male S. tiburo could have evolved mechanisms of sperm competition to outcompete rival males, allowing them to typically
monopolize fertilization despite polyandrous mating by
females (for examples and reviews of sperm competition
in other taxa see: Parker 1970; Birkhead & Moller 1998;
Urbani et al. 1998; Birkhead 2000). More detailed studies of
these processes in this and additional shark species could
help reveal how postcopulatory sexual selection shapes
the behavioural mating system into realized reproductive
success in these internally fertilizing fishes.
From a comparative perspective, the predominance of
single paternity in S. tiburo provides a valuable contrast
with which to obtain a better understanding of the evolutionary significance of multiple paternity in sharks. Because
female sharks do not receive direct fitness benefits (such as
nuptial gifts) from copulating with more than one male,
genetic benefits of polyandry are likely to play a more significant role in mating system evolution in this group, as
has been postulated for other taxa with limited social
bonding between mates, such as turtles (Pearse & Avise
2001). Current speculation about the selective advantage of
multiple paternity to individual female G. cirratum is that
it increases the genetic diversity of their litters in what are
thought to be small populations of largely nondispersive,
philopatric animals (Pratt & Carrier 2001; Saville et al.
2002). This could enhance each female’s lifetime reproductive fitness by increasing the probability that some of her
progeny will survive in a changing environment. Feldheim
et al. (2002) suggest that the benefit of almost exclusive
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
G E N E T I C M A T I N G S Y S T E M I N A H A M M E R H E A D S H A R K 1971
polyandry and multiple paternity they observed in female
N. brevirostris (also applicable to G. cirratum) is that this
strategy reduces the likelihood of producing offspring
with a genetically incompatible male (e.g. a relative) under
conditions of small population size and philopatry to breeding grounds. Accrual of both types of genetic benefits
are leading hypotheses for the evolution of female polyandry and multiple paternity across the animal kingdom
(Zeh & Zeh 1997; Birkhead & Moller 1998; Newcomer et al.
1999; Birkhead 2000; Jennions & Petrie 2000; Tregenza &
Wedell 2002). In contrast, although some S. tiburo are also
believed to be philopatric to mating and pupping grounds
following their winter migration (Hueter 1998), their
breeding populations may be naturally buffered against
close-kin mating by the very large populations that occur
in the estuaries of west Florida (Parsons 1993a,b). When
large breeding population size is combined with the apparent
physical and energetic costs of mating for female S. tiburo
(stemming largely from often extensive wounds caused
by peri-copulatory biting by males; Pratt & Carrier 2001),
the selective advantage of polyandry to achieve genetic
benefits may be relatively low in particular for small
females. If this model of mating system evolution is valid
in sharks generally, we hypothesize that species with large
and/or highly dispersive populations will have lower levels
of polyandrous mating and multiple paternity than species
with small or fragmented, and less dispersive populations.
The observed interspecific variation in shark genetic
mating systems has important implications for the management and conservation of genetic diversity in these
ancient and often heavily exploited fishes. Predominantly
genetically monogamous sharks such as S. tiburo may be
more prone to lose genetic diversity than genetically polyandrous species in the face of sudden, dramatic changes in
population size (e.g. through over-fishing) because multiple paternity will tend to increase the effective population
size and help buffer the loss of genetic diversity associated
with sudden demographic bottlenecks (Sugg & Chesser
1994; Moran & Garcia-Vazquez 1998; Martinez et al. 2000).
The erosion of genetic diversity may be exacerbated further in genetically monogamous species if multiple paternity is typical only of the larger females, as suggested by
our preliminary data from S. tiburo. This is because in
sharks and many other exploited marine animals, fishing
pressure leads typically to a reduction in larger size classes,
because many individuals are caught before they grow to
a large size (e.g. Kristiansen et al. 2000; Abbe 2002) and fishers
often target the larger, more economically valuable individuals (NOAA 1999; NMFS 2001).
Population decline and a loss of genetic diversity may
also be particularly acute when exploitation is genderbiased, with adult females being more heavily exploited.
Shark populations are often characterized by strong
geographical sexual segregation ( Myrberg & Gruber 1974;
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
Klimley 1987; Pratt & Carrier 2001), which can result in
female-biased exploitation because of their propensity to
routinely congregate closer to shore to give birth at predictable times of the year (Hueter 1998; NOAA 1999; NMFS
2001). If overfishing of females results in sudden population sex-ratio changes in genetically polyandrous sharks,
the natural mating behaviour of the depleted and potentially more genetically depauperate pool of surviving
breeding females will mitigate short-term erosion of overall population genetic diversity by producing offspring
with multiple partners from the relatively larger and more
genetically diverse pool of adult males. By contrast, in
sharks where females are mostly genetically monogamous
the effective population size is strongly constrained by the
total number of breeding females. This constraint occurs
because only one male usually fertilizes each female in
a given reproductive cycle, defining an upper limit to the
number of males that can breed successfully every year
(i.e. equivalent to the number of breeding females). Under
this type of genetic mating system, demographic shifts to a
highly male-biased sex ratio (due to over-fishing of females)
will result in a reduction in the effective population size
in direct proportion to the decline in breeding females,
regardless of the number of surviving adult males. Therefore, the findings of this study indicate that a characterization of the genetic mating system of many exploited shark
species coupled with sex-specific landings statistics are
urgently needed to develop management strategies aimed
at preserving their genetic diversity.
Sharks represent an ancient vertebrate lineage that has
maintained sufficient evolutionary flexibility to radiate
into a wide range of aquatic niches and survive for many
millions of years. In the past 30 years, however, anthropogenic exploitation driven in large measure by the shark fin
trade has caused severe depletion of many shark populations worldwide (Manire & Gruber 1990; Camhi 1998; Baum
et al. 2003), and is likely to be causing a concurrent erosion
of their genetic variation. As has been recognized for other
strongly K-selected vertebrates (Frankham et al. 2002), this
erosion may compromise the evolutionary adaptive potential of many shark species. Our results demonstrating the
unanticipated predominance of genetic monogamy in a
shark species suggests that genetic mating systems in sharks
are likely to be complex and highly variable between
species. As a result, conservation and management efforts
must take into account that mating system differences may
affect the rate of loss of genetic diversity of different shark
species in the face of heavy fishing pressure, particularly
when this fishing is concentrated on large adult females.
Acknowledgements
We thank J. Tyminski (Mote Marine Laboratory) and many student interns and volunteers for major assistance in field sampling
1972 D . D . C H A P M A N E T A L .
and animal collections and R. Hynes, W. Booth, D. Booth, M.
Hughes and N. McKeown (Prodöhl Laboratory, The Queen’s University) for assistance with microsatellite development. We are
also grateful to M. Hansen and two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments and helpful discussion. We extend our
appreciation to B. Neff for kindly modifying the prdm program to
account for larger number of alleles and for very helpful discussion on several issues surrounding the probability of detection
multiple paternity. The laboratory portion of this study was supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Hai Stiftung
Foundation, the Guy Harvey Research Institute and a National
Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship (to Demian D. Chapman).
Field sampling was supported by a Mote Scientific Foundation
Grant (to James Gelsleichter) and an Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grant (E826128-01–0) (to Charles A. Manire). Although
the research presented here was supported in part by the Environmental Protection Agency, it has not been subjected to the
Agency’s peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement
should be inferred.
References
Abbe GR (2002) Decline in size of male blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, from 1968 to 2000 near Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Estuaries,
25, 105–114.
Avise JC (1994) Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution.
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Avise JC, Jones AG, Walker D, DeWoody JA (2002) Genetic mating
systems and reproductive natural histories of fishes: lessons for
ecology and evolution. Annual Reviews of Genetics, 36, 19 –45.
Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler DG, Worm B, Harley SJ, Doherty PA
(2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the
Northwest Atlantic. Science, 299, 389– 392.
Birkhead T (2000) Promiscuity — an Evolutionary History of Sperm
Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Birkhead T, Moller AP (1998) Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. Academic Press, London.
Brookfield JFY (1996) A simple method for estimating null allele
frequency from heterozygote deficiency. Molecular Ecology, 5,
453–455.
Camhi M (1998) Sharks on the line: A State by State Analysis of Sharks
and Their Fisheries. Living Oceans Program, National Audobon
Society, Islip, New York.
Carlson JK, Parsons GR (1997) Age and growth of the bonnethead
shark, Sphyrna tiburo, from Northwest Florida, with comments
on clinal variation. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 50, 331–341.
Carrier JC, Pratt HL, Martin LK (1994) Group reproductive behavior in free-living nurse sharks, Ginglymostoma cirratum. Copeia,
1994, 646–656.
Chakraborty R, de Andrade M, Daiger SP, Budowle B (1992)
Apparent heterozygote deficiencies observed in DNA typing
data and their implications in forensic applications. Annals of
Human Genetics, 56, 45 – 57.
Chapman DD, Corcoran MJ, Harvey G, Malan S, Shivji MS (2003)
Mating behavior of southern stingrays. Environmental Biology of
Fishes, 68, 241–245.
Cortes E, Parsons GR (1996) Comparative demography of two
populations of the bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo). Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53, 709–718.
DeWoody JA, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Nelson WS, Avise JC
(2000) Genetic monogamy and biparental care in an externally
fertilizing fish, the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 267, 2431–
2437.
Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV (2002) The breeding biology
of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Series B, 269, 1655–1661.
Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV (2001) Multiple paternity of
a lemon shark litter (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae). Copeia,
3, 781–786.
Fitzsimmons NN (1998) Single paternity of clutches and sperm
storage in the promiscuous green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Molecular Ecology, 7, 575–584.
Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to
Conservation Genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Gelsleichter J, Steinetz BG, Manire CA, Ange C (2003) Serum
Relaxin concentrations and reproduction in male bonnethead
sharks, Sphyrna tiburo. General and Comparative Endocrinology,
132, 27 –34.
Hueter RE (1998) Philopatry, natal homing and localized stock
depletion in sharks. Shark News, 12, [Newsletter of the IUCN/
SSC Shark Specialist Group] 1– 2.
Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A
review of the genetic benefits. Biology Review, 75, 21 –64.
Jones A (2001) gerud 1.0: a computer program for the reconstruction of parental genotypes from progeny arrays using multilocus
DNA data. Molecular Ecology Notes, 1, 215–218.
Kijas JMH, Fowler JCS, Gabett CA et al. (1994) Enrichment of
microsatellites from the citrus genome using biotinylated oligonucleotide sequences bound to streptavidin-coated magnetic
particles. Biotechniques, 16, 657–662.
Klimley AP (1987) The determinants of sexual segregation in the
scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini. Environmental
Biology of Fishes, 18, 27 –40.
Kraaijevald-Smit FJL, Ward SJ, Temple-Smith PD, Paetkau D
(2002) Factors affecting paternity success in Antechinus agilis:
last male sperm precedence, timing of mating and genetic
compatibility. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 15, 100–107.
Kristiansen TS, Otteraa H, Svaasand T (2000) Size-dependent
mortality of juvenile Atlantic cod, estimated from recaptures of
released reared cod and tagged wild cod. Journal of Fish Biology,
56, 687–712.
Manire CA, Gruber SH (1990) Many sharks may be headed
toward extinction. Conservation Biology, 4, 10 –11.
Manire CA, Rasmussen LEL, Hess DL, Hueter RH (1995) Serum
steroid hormones and the reproductive cycle of the bonnethead
shark, Sphyrna tiburo. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 97,
366–376.
Martinez JLP, Moran J, Perez B, De Gaudemar E, Beall GarciaVazquez E (2000) Multiple paternity increase effective population size of southern Atlantic salmon populations. Molecular
Ecology, 9, 293–298.
Moran P, Garcia-Vazquez E (1998) Multiple paternity in Atlantic
salmon: a way to maintain genetic variability in relicted populations. Journal of Heredity, 89, 551–553.
Morley JI, Balshine S (2002) Faithful fish: territory and mate
defence favour monogamy in African cichlid fish. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 52, 326–331.
Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280–283.
Myrberg AA, Gruber SH (1974) The behavior of the bonnethead
shark, Sphyrna tiburo. Copeia, 1974, 358–374.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
G E N E T I C M A T I N G S Y S T E M I N A H A M M E R H E A D S H A R K 1973
Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2002) Assessing the statistical power of
genetic analyses to detect multiple mating in fish. Journal of Fish
Biology, 61, 739–750.
Newcomer SD, Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1999) Genetic benefits enhance
the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 10236 –10241.
Nichols S, Gelsleichter J, Manire CA, Cailliet GM (2003) Calcitoninlike immunoreactivity in serum and tissues of the bonnethead
shark, Sphyrna tiburo. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 298, 150–
161.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2001) Final United
States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management
of Sharks. National Marine Fisheries Service Report. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
(1999) Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Spiny Dogfish Life
History Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNE-150. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA,
USA.
Ohta Y, Okamura K, McKinney EC, Bartl S, Hashimoto K, Flajnik MF
(2000) Primitive synteny of vertebrate histocompatibility complex class I and class II genes. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences USA, 97, 4712 – 4717.
Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelstrom H (1996)
Sperm selection by females. Nature, 383, 585.
Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biology Reviews, 45, 525–567.
Parsons GR (1993a) Geographic variation in reproduction between
two populations of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 38, 25 – 35.
Parsons GR (1993b) Age determination and growth of the bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo: a comparison of two populations.
Marine Biology, 117, 23 – 31.
Pearse DE, Avise JC (2001) Turtle mating systems: behavior,
sperm storage and genetic paternity. Journal of Heredity, 92,
206–211.
Pratt HL (1993) The storage of spermatozoa in the oviducal glands
of western North Atlantic sharks. Environmental Biology of Fishes,
38, 139–149.
Pratt HL, Carrier JC (2001) A review of elasmobranch reproductive behavior with a case study on the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma
cirratum. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 157–188.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974
Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) genepop version 3: population
genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of
Heredity, 86, 248–249.
Rowe S, Hutchings JA (2003) Mating systems and the conservation
of commercially exploited marine fish. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 18, 567–571.
Saville KJ, Lindley AM, Maries EG, Carrier JC, Pratt HL (2002)
Multiple paternity in the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum.
Environmental Biology of Fishes, 63, 347–351.
Stockley P (1999) Sperm selection and genetic incompatibility:
does relatedness of mates affect male success in sperm
competition? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B,
266, 1663–1669.
Sugg DW, Chesser RK (1994) Effective population size with
multiple paternity. Genetics, 137, 1147–1155.
Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice
and patterns of parentage [invited review]. Molecular Ecology, 9,
1013 –1027.
Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid cost of
inbreeding. Nature, 6837, 71 –73.
Urbani N, Sainte-Marie B, Sevigny JM, Zadworny D, Kuhnlein U
(1998) Sperm competition and paternity assurance during the
first breeding period of female snow crabs (Chionoectes opilio)
(Brachyura: Majidae). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science, 55, 1104–1113.
Weir B, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the
analysis of population structure. Evolution, 38, 1358–1370.
Yano K, Sato F, Takahashi T (1999) Observations of the mating
behavior of the manta ray, Manta birostris, at the Ogasawara
Islands, Japan. Ichthyological Research, 46, 289–296.
Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: postcopulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 264, 69 –75.
This study is part of ongoing research in the Shivji and Prodöhl
laboratories to characterize genetic mating systems in fishes in the
context of conservation and management. D. Chapman is a PhD
student in the Shivji laboratory and is focusing on elasmobranch
conservation and mating systems. J. Gelsleichter and C. Manire
have long-standing research programmes in elasmobranch
physiology and conservation.
1974 D . D . C H A P M A N E T A L .
Appendix I
Allelic frequency distribution (%) at four microsatellite loci for 119 S. tiburo specimens from West Florida. Locus Sti10 alleles differing by a
single bp have been pooled together in 2 bp bin allelic classes (see text).
Sti 01
Sti 04
Sti 10
Pgl 02
Allele
Freq (%)
Allele
Freq (%)
Allele
Freq (%)
Allele
Freq (%)
179
181
185
187
189
191
193
2.63
36.40
0.44
3.51
54.82
0.44
1.75
98
101
104
107
110
113
10.28
3.74
5.14
65.89
9.81
5.14
242
244
254
256
260
265
268
272
278
280
289
291
296
302
304
308
313
315
317
323
325
327
337
339
349
351
360
362
372
374
387
395
398
411
420
3.64
1.36
4.09
3.18
0.91
2.27
3.64
0.45
3.64
4.09
1.82
4.09
0.45
3.64
4.55
0.45
4.55
5.91
0.91
0.45
3.64
8.64
4.09
3.64
1.82
4.55
2.73
5.91
1.82
3.18
2.27
0.91
1.36
0.45
0.91
118
121
124
127
130
133
4.05
22.97
47.75
20.72
4.05
0.45
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Molecular Ecology, 13, 1965–1974