Marine Biology

, 166:38 | Cite as

Genetic evidence for alloparental care and frequent multiple paternity in the brooding sea star (Leptasterias sp.)

  • Felipe S. BarretoEmail author
  • Kristofer K. Bauer
Original paper


Echinoderms form an abundant and ecologically important group of marine animals, and they are found in nearly every marine environment, from shallow tropical waters to deep polar benthos and even in the pelagic zone. They exhibit a wide diversity of reproductive strategies that range from broadcasting millions of gametes, with no parental care, to internal brooding of a few embryos for several weeks. While many echinoderm species have become model systems for studies of community ecology, evolutionary genetics, and development biology, very little is known about the distribution of mating and reproductive success in natural populations. In this study, we examined patterns of genetic maternity and paternity in the six-rayed sea star Leptasterias sp., an important predator of many intertidal communities and a species that exhibits maternal care of embryos. We used next-generation sequencing to rapidly develop informative microsatellite markers for this species, and used these markers to genotype 439 juveniles across 15 broods collected from the intertidal in Fogarty Creek, Oregon, USA. Our data show an unambiguous pattern of multiple paternity in all but one clutch examined, with some broods showing some of the highest levels of polyandry reported for a marine invertebrate. Moreover, we detected two cases of mixed maternity in which a female sea star carried another mother’s offspring mixed with her own. Alloparental care by females is rare, and since female Leptasterias do not eat during the 40–60 days brooding period, this expensive behavior may provide a useful system for examining the evolutionary costs and benefits of parental care in dynamic intertidal environments.



We thank Sarah Gravem for helpful comments on the manuscript, and Mark Dasenko for help with Illumina sequencing.


This research was supported by Oregon State University funds to F. S. B. and SURE Science internship funds to K. K. B.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

227_2019_3487_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (193 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 193 kb)
227_2019_3487_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 11 kb)


  1. Andrews S (2010) FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Accessed 22 Aug 2018
  2. Avise JC, Liu JX (2010) Multiple mating and its relationship to alternative modes of gestation in male-pregnant versus female-pregnant fish species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:18915–18920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avise J, Jones A, Walker D, DeWoody J (2002) Genetic mating systems and reproductive natural histories of fishes: lessons for ecology and evolution. Annu Rev Genet 36:19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baggio RA, Pil MW, Boeger WA et al (2011) Genetic evidence for multiple paternity in the mangrove land crab Ucides cordatus (Decapoda: Ocypodidae). Mar Biol Res 7:520–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barazandeh M, Davis CS, Neufeld CJ et al (2013) Something Darwin didn’t know about barnacles: spermcast mating in a common stalked species. Proc R Soc B 280:20122919. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto FS, Avise JC (2008) Polygynandry and sexual size dimorphism in the sea spider Ammothea hilgendorfi (Pycnogonida: Ammotheidae), a marine arthropod with brood-carrying males. Mol Ecol 17:4164–4175. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barreto FS, Avise JC (2010) Quantitative measures of sexual selection reveal no evidence for sex-role reversal in a sea spider with prolonged paternal care. Proc R Soc B 277:2951–2956. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barreto FS, Avise JC (2011) The genetic mating system of a sea spider with male-biased sexual size dimorphism: evidence for paternity skew despite random mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1595–1604. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Beier S, Thiel T, Münch T et al (2017) MISA-web: a web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics 33:2583–2585. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Møller A (1992) Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bishop JDD (2006) The third way: spermcast mating in sessile marine invertebrates. Integr Comp Biol 46:398–406. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brookfield JFY (1996) A simple new method for estimating null allele frequency from heterozygote deficiency. Mol Ecol 5:453–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burris ZP (2011) The polygamous mating system of the sea spider Achelia simplissima. Invertebr Reprod Dev 55:162–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne M (1996) Viviparity and intragonadal cannibalism in the diminutive sea stars Patiriella vivipara and P. parvivipara (family Asterinidae). Mar Biol 125:551–567Google Scholar
  15. Chenuil A, Gault A, Feral J (2004) Paternity analysis in the Antarctic brooding sea urchin Abatus nimrodi. A pilot study. Polar Biol 27:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chia F-S (1966) Brooding behavior of a six-rayed starfish, Leptasterias hexactis. Biol Bull 130:304–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman SW, Jones AG (2011) Patterns of multiple paternity and maternity in fishes. Biol J Linn Soc 103:735–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeWoody JA, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Avise JC (2000) Parentage and nest guarding in the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) assayed by microsatellite markers (Perciformes: Percidae). Copeia 2000:740–747.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dupont L, Richard J, Paulet YM et al (2006) Gregariousness and protandry promote reproductive insurance in the invasive gastropod Crepidula fornicata: evidence from assignment of larval paternity. Mol Ecol 15:3009–3021. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Faircloth BC (2008) MSATCOMMANDER: detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design. Mol Ecol Resour 8:92–94. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferguson CD, Blum MJ, Raymer ML et al (2013) Population structure, multiple paternity, and long-distance transport of spermatozoa in the freshwater mussel Lampsilis cardium (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Freshw Sci 32:267–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foltz DW, Nguyen AT, Kiger JR, Mah CL (2008) Pleistocene speciation of sister taxa in a North Pacific clade of brooding sea stars (Leptasterias). Mar Biol 154:593–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gero S, Engelhaupt D, Rendell L, Whitehead H (2009) Who cares? Between-group variation in alloparental caregiving in sperm whales. Behav Ecol 20:838–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gillespie JM, McClintock JB (2007) Brooding in echinoderms: how can modern experimental techniques add to our historical perspective? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:191–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gosselin T, Sainte-Marie B, Bernatchez L (2005) Geographic variation of multiple paternity in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Mol Ecol 14:1517–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gravem SA, Morgan SG (2017) Shifts in intertidal zonation and refuge use by prey after mass mortalities of two predators. Ecology 98:1006–1015. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hess HC (1993) The evolution of parental care in brooding spirorbid polychaetes: the effect of scaling constraints. Am Nat 141:577–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jamieson A, Taylor SC (1997) Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Anim Genet 28:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 75:21–64. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jense PC, Bentzen P (2012) A molecular dissection of the mating system of the dungeness crab, Metacarcinus magister (Brachyura: Cancridae). J Crustac Biol 32:443–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson S, Yund P (2007) Variation in multiple paternity in natural populations of a free-spawning marine invertebrate. Mol Ecol 16:3253–3262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones AG (2005) GERUD 2.0: a computer program for the reconstruction of parental genotypes from half-sib progeny arrays with known or unknown parents. Mol Ecol Notes 5:708–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones AG, Walker D, Avise JC (2001a) Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc R Soc B 268:2531–2535. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones AG, Walker D, Kvarnemo C et al (2001b) How cuckoldry can decrease the opportunity for sexual selection: data and theory from a genetic parentage analysis of the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:9151–9156. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalinowski ST, Wagner AP, Taper ML (2006) ML-RELATE: a computer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol Ecol Notes 6:576–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kamel SJ, Grosberg RK (2012) Exclusive male care despite extreme female promiscuity and low paternity in a marine snail. Ecol Lett 15:1167–1173. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Keever CC, Puritz JB, Addison JA et al (2013) Shallow gene pools in the high intertidal: extreme loss of genetic diversity in viviparous sea stars (Parvulastra). Biol Lett 9:20130551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kellogg KA, Markert JA, Stauffer JR, Kocher TD (1998) Intraspecific brood mixing and reduced polyandry in a maternal mouth-brooding cichlid. Behav Ecol 9:309–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lasker H, Gutiérrez-Rodríguez C, Bala K et al (2008) Male reproductive success during spawning events of the octocoral Pseudopterogorgia elisabethae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mackiewicz M, Porter BA, Dakin EE, Avise JC (2005) Cuckoldry rates in the Molly Miller (Scartella cristata; blenniidae), a hole-nesting marine fish with alternative reproductive tactics. Mar Biol 148:213–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magoc T, Salzberg SL (2011) FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27:2957–2963. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnetjournal 17:10–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maturana CS, Gérard K, Díaz A et al (2016) Mating system and evidence of multiple paternity in the Antarctic brooding sea urchin Abatus agassizii. Polar Biol 40:787–797. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCoy EE, Jones AG, Avise JC (2001) The genetic mating system and tests for cuckoldry in a pipefish species in which males fertilize eggs and brood offspring externally. Mol Ecol 10:1793–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McEdward LR, Miner BG (2001) Larval and life-cycle patterns in echinoderms. Can J Zool 79:1125–1170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Engqvist L, Frommen JG (2010) To eat or not to eat: egg-based assessment of paternity triggers fine-tuned decisions about filial cannibalism. Proc Biol Sci B 277:2627–2635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Melroy LM, Smith RJ, Cohen CS (2017) Phylogeography of direct-developing sea stars in the genus Leptasterias in relation to San Francisco Bay outflow in central California. Mar Biol 164:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Menge BA (1972) Competition for food between two intertidal starfish species and its effect on body size and feeding. Ecology 53:635–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Menge BA (1974) Effect of wave action and competition on brooding and reproductive effort in the seastar, Leptasterias hexactis. Ecology 55:84–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neff BD (2003) Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity. Nature 422:716–719. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrovsky AN, Lidgard S, Gordon DP et al (2016) Matrotrophy and placentation in invertebrates: a new paradigm. Biol Rev 91:673–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Panova M, Boström J, Hofving T et al (2010) Extreme female promiscuity in a non-social invertebrate species. PLoS One 5:e9640. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearse DE, Anderson EC (2009) Multiple paternity increases effective population size. Mol Ecol 18:3124–3127. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Philipp DP, Gross MR (1994) Genetic evidence for cuckoldry in bluegill Lepomis macrochirus. Mol Ecol 3:563–569. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plough LV, Moran A, Marko P (2014) Density drives polyandry and relatedness influences paternal success in the Pacific gooseneck barnacle, Pollicipes elegans. BMC Evol Biol 14:81. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Porter B, Fiumera A, Avise J (2002) Egg mimicry and allopaternal care: two mate-attracting tactics by which nesting striped darter (Etheostoma virgatum) males enhance reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:350–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Puritz JB, Keever CC, Addison JA et al (2012) Extraordinarily rapid life-history divergence between Cryptasterina sea star species. Proc R Soc B 279:3914–3922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Royle N, Smiseth P, Kölliker M (2012) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sambrook J, Russell DW (2010) Purification of nucleic acids by extraction with phenol:chloroform. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmoll T, Schurr FM, Winkel W et al (2007) Polyandry in coal tits Parus ater: fitness consequences of putting eggs into multiple genetic baskets. J Evol Biol 20:1115–1125. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sefc KM, Hermann CM, Taborsky B, Kolbmüller S (2012) Brood mixing and reduced polyandry in a maternally mouthbrooding cichlid with elevated among-breeder relatedness. Mol Ecol 21:2805–2815. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Stockley P, Searle JB, Macdonald DW, Jones CS (1993) Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proc Biol Sci B 254:173–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sugg DW, Chesser RK (1994) Effective population sizes with multiple paternity. Genetics 137:1147–1155PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Toonen R (2004) Genetic evidence of multiple paternity of broods in the intertidal crab Petrolisthes cinctipes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 270:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Unger L, Sargent R (1988) Allopaternal care in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: females prefer males with eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Voight J, Feldheim K (2009) Microsatellite inheritance and multiple paternity in the deep-sea octopus Graneledone boreopacifica (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Invertebr Biol 128:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vulstek SC, Tallmon DA, Linderoth TP, Guyon JR (2013) Spatio-temporal population genetic structure and mating system of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Alaska. J Crustac Biol 33:691–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wacker S, Larsen BM, Jakobsen P, Karlsson S (2018) High levels of multiple paternity in a spermcast mating freshwater mussel. Ecol Evol 14:1803–1809. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Watson PJ (1991) Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim Behav 41:343–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilson WH (1991) Sexual reproductive modes in polychaetes: classification and diversity. Bull Mar Sci 48:500–516Google Scholar
  74. Wisenden BD (1999) Alloparental care in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yasui Y (1998) The “genetic benefits” of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Yasui Y (2001) Female multiple mating as a genetic bet-hedging strategy when mate choice criteria are unreliable. Ecol Res 16:605–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations