Your PDF has successfully downloaded.

You may be interested in finding more content on these topics:


You are not currently logged in.

Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:


Log in through your institution.

The Risk and Intensity of Sperm Ejection in Female Birds

Rebecca Dean, Shinichi Nakagawa and Tommaso Pizzari
The American Naturalist
Vol. 178, No. 3 (September 2011), pp. 343-354
DOI: 10.1086/661244
Stable URL:
Page Count: 12
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.


AbstractThe way females utilize the gametes of different males has important consequences for sexual selection, sexual conflict, and intersexual coevolution in natural populations. However, patterns of sperm utilization by females are difficult to demonstrate, and their functional significance remains unclear. Here, we experimentally study sperm ejection in the fowl Gallus gallus domesticus, where females eject preferentially the sperm of socially subordinate males. We study two measures of sperm ejection, (i) the probability that an ejaculate is ejected (“risk”) and (ii) the proportion of semen ejected (“intensity”), and show that both measures are strongly nonrandom with respect to characteristics of the ejaculate, the male, and the female. Sperm ejection neutralized on average 80% of an ejaculate, and while larger ejaculates suffered a higher ejection risk, smaller ejaculates suffered more intense ejection. After controlling for ejaculate volume, we found socially subdominant males suffered higher ejection intensity. After controlling for male and ejaculate effects, we found ejection risk increased and intensity declined as females mated with successive males. Collectively, these results reveal that sperm ejection risk and intensity are at least partly actively caused by female behavior and generate independent selective pressures on male and ejaculate phenotypes.

Notes and References

This item contains 74 references.

Literature Cited
  • ['Baker, R. R., and M. A. Bellis. 1993. Human sperm competition: ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation. Animal Behaviour 46:861–885.']
  • ['Ball, M. A., and G. A. Parker. 2003. Sperm competition games: sperm selection by females. Journal of Theoretical Biology 224:27–42.']
  • ['Barrett, S. C., ed. 1992. Evolution and function of heterostyly. Springer, Berlin.']
  • ['Bernasconi, G., T. L. Ashman, T. R. Birkhead, J. D. D. Bishop, U. Grossniklaus, E. Kubli, D. L. Marshall, et al. 2004. Evolutionary ecology of the prezygotic stage. Science 303:971–975.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52:1212–1218.']
  • ['———. 2000. Defining and demonstrating postcopulatory female choice—again. Evolution 54:1057–1060.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R., and A. P. Møller. 1992. Sperm competition in birds: evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, London.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R., and T. Pizzari. 2002. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Reviews Genetics 3:262–273.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R., A. P. Møller, and W. J. Sutherland. 1993. Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? Journal of Theoretical Biology 161:51–60.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R., J. G. Martinez, T. Burke, and D. P. Froman. 1999. Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:1759–1764.']
  • ['Birkhead, T. R., N. Chaline, J. D. Biggins, T. Burke, and T. Pizzari. 2004. Nontransitivity of paternity in a bird. Evolution 58:416–420.']
  • ['Björkman, T. 1995. The effectiveness of heterostyly in preventing illegitimate pollination in dish-shaped flowers. Sexual Plant Reproduction 8:143–146.']
  • ['Collias, N. E., and E. C. Collias. 1996. Social organization of a red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, population related to evolutionary theory. Animal Behaviour 51:1337–1354.']
  • ['Cordoba-Aguilar, A. 1999. Male copulatory sensory stimulation induces female ejection of rival sperm in a damselfly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 266:779–784.']
  • ['———. 2006. Sperm ejection as a possible cryptic female choice mechanism in Odonata (Insecta). Physiological Entomology 31:146–153.']
  • ['Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead. 2007. Changes in sperm quality and numbers in response to experimental manipulation of male social status and female attractiveness. American Naturalist 170:758–770.']
  • ['Davies, N. B. 1983. Polyandry, cloaca-pecking and sperm competition in dunnocks. Nature 302:334–336.']
  • ['Dean, R., C. K. Cornwallis, H. Løvlie, K. Worley, D. S. Richardson, and T. Pizzari. 2010. Male reproductive senescence causes potential for sexual conflict over mating. Current Biology 20:1192–1196, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.059.']
  • ['Delph, L. F., and K. Havens. 1998. Pollen competition in flowering plants. Pages 149–173 in T. R. Birkhead and A. P. Møller, eds. Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London.']
  • ['Eady, P. 1994. Sperm transfer and storage in relation to sperm competition in Callosobruchus maculatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 35:123–129.']
  • ['Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.']
  • ['———. 1991. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 66:1–31.']
  • ['———. 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulations in 131 species of insects and spiders and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution 48:711–733.']
  • ['———. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.']
  • ['———. 2000. Criteria for demonstrating postcopulatory female choice. Evolution 54:1047–1050.']
  • ['———. 2009. Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin’s omission and its consequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106:10025–10032.']
  • ['Edvardsson, M., and G. Arnqvist. 2000. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in red flour beetles Tribolium castaneum. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:559–563.']
  • ['Gage, M. J. G., and E. H. Morrow. 2003. Experimental evidence for the evolution of numerous, tiny sperm via sperm competition. Current Biology 13:754–757.']
  • ['Ginsberg, J. R., and D. I. Rubenstein. 1990. Sperm competition and variation in zebra mating behavior. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 26:427–434.']
  • ['Greeff, J. M., and G. A. Parker. 2000. Spermicide by females: what should males do? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:1759–1763.']
  • ['Grilli, L., and C. Rampichini. 2007. A multilevel multinomial logit model for the analysis of graduates’ skills. Statistical Methods and Applications 16:381–393.']
  • ['Hadfield, J. D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalised linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software 33:1–22.']
  • ['Hadfield, J. D., and S. Nakagawa. 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23:494–508.']
  • ['Harrison, B. 1987. Den Svenska dvärghönan. II. Sven. Rasf. Tidskrift 1:12–14.']
  • ['Hass, B. 1990. A quantitative study of insemination and gamete efficiency in different species of the Rhabditis strongyloides group (Nematoda). Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 18:205–208.']
  • ['Helfenstein, F., R. H. Wagner, and E. Danchin. 2003. Sexual conflict over sperm ejection in monogamous pairs of kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54:370–376.']
  • ['Hoikkala, A., and S. Crossley 2000. Copulatory courtship in Drosophila: behaviour and songs of D. birchii and D. serrata. Journal of Insect Behavior 13:71–86.']
  • ['Hoikkala, A., S. Crossley, and C. Castillo-Melendez. 2000. Copulatory courtship in Drosophila birchii and D. serrata, species recognition and sexual selection. Journal of Insect Behavior 13:361–373.']
  • ['———. 2006. Spermicide, cryptic female choice and the evolution of sperm form and function. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19:1660–1670.']
  • ['Holman, L., and R. R. Snook. 2008. A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female-mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Current Biology 18:292–296.']
  • ['Humphries, D. A. 1967. The mating behaviour of the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae (Schrank) (Siphonaptera: Insecta). Animal Behaviour 15:82–90.']
  • ['Kaufman, J. F. 1965. A three-year study of mating behavior in a free-ranging band of rhesus monkeys. Ecology 46:500–512.']
  • ['Kempenaers, B., K. Foerster, S. Questiau, B. C. Robertson, and E. L. M. Vermeirssen 2000. Distinguishing between female sperm choice versus male sperm competition: a comment on Birkhead. Evolution 54:1050–1052.']
  • ['Kubo, K., T. Entani, A. Takara, N. Wang, A. M. Fields, Z. H. Hua, M. Toyoda, et al. 2010. Collaborative non-self recognition system in S-Rnase-based self-incompatibility. Science 330:796–799.']
  • ['Ligon, J. D., and P. W. Zwartjes. 1995. Female red junglefowl choose to mate with multiple males. Animal Behaviour 49:127–135.']
  • ['Løvlie, H., and T. Pizzari. 2007. Sex in the morning or in the evening? females adjust daily mating patterns to the intensity of sexual harassment. American Naturalist 170:E1–E13.']
  • ['Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065–1080.']
  • ['Manier, M. K., J. M. Belote, K. S. Berben, D. Novikov, W. T. Stuart, and S. Pitnick. 2010. Resolving mechanisms of competitive fertilization success in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 328:354–357.']
  • ['Martin, P. A., T. J. Reimers, J. R. Lodge, and P. J. Dziuk. 1974. Effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from 2 males on proportions of offspring. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 39:251–258.']
  • ['Mazer, S. J., A. A. Hove, B. S. Miller, and M. Barbet-Massin. 2010. The joint evolution of mating system and pollen performance: predictions regarding male gametophytic evolution in selfers vs. outcrossers. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 12:31–41.']
  • ['McBride, G., I. P. Parer, and F. Foenander. 1969. The social organisation and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour Monographs 2:125–181.']
  • ['Moore, J. C., and J. R. Pannell. 2011. Sexual selection in plants. Current Biology 21:R176–R182.']
  • ['Nakagawa, S., and H. Schielzeth. 2010. Repeatability for non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 85:935–956.']
  • ['Parker, G. A. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 45:525–567.']
  • ['Parker, G. A., and T. Pizzari. 2010. Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 85:897–934.']
  • ['Parker, J. E., F. F. McKenzie, and H. L. Kempster. 1942. Fertility in the male domestic fowl. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 347, Columbia.']
  • ['Peretti, A. V., and W. G. Eberhard. 2009. Cryptic female choice via sperm dumping favours male copulatory courtship in a spider. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23:271–281.']
  • ['Pitnick, S., and W. D. Brown. 2000. Criteria for demonstrating female sperm choice. Evolution. 54:1052–1056.']
  • ['Pitnick, S., M. F. Wolfner, and S. S. Suarez. 2009. Ejaculate-female and sperm-female interactions. Pages 247–304 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, London.']
  • ['Pizzari, T. 2001. Indirect partner choice through manipulation of male behaviour by female fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:181–186.']
  • ['———. 2007. Post-insemination sexual selection in birds. Pages 137–154 in E. R. S. Roldan and M. Gomendio, eds. Spermatology. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., and T. R. Birkhead. 2000. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., and G. Parker. 2009. Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. Pages 207–245 in T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken, and S. Pitnick, eds. Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, London.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., C. K. Cornwallis, H. Løvlie, S. Jakobsson, and T. R. Birkhead. 2003. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature 426:70–74.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., H. Løvlie, and C. K. Cornwallis. 2004. Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:2115–2121.']
  • ['Pizzari, T., K. Worley, T. Burke, and D. P. Froman. 2008. Sperm competition dynamics: ejaculate fertilising efficiency changes differentially with time. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8:332.']
  • ['Rehfeld, V. K., and W. Sudhaus. 1985. Comparative studies of sexual behaviour of two sibling species of Rhabditis (Nematoda). Zoologische Jahrbuecher Abteilung fuer Systematik Oekologie und Geographie der Tiere 112:435–454.']
  • ['Scharer, L., D. T. J. Littlewood, A. Waeschenbach, W. Yoshida, and D. B. Vizoso. 2011. Mating behavior and the evolution of sperm design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108:1490–1495.']
  • ['Schutz, K. E., and P. Jensen. 2001. Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107:753–765.']
  • ['Snook, R. R., and D. J. Hosken. 2004. Sperm death and dumping in Drosophila. Nature 428:939–941.']
  • ['Tallamy, D. W., M. B. Darlington, J. D. Pesek, and B. E. Powell. 2003. Copulatory courtship signals male genetic quality in cucumber beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270:77–82.']
  • ['Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.']
  • ['Wagner, R. H., F. Helfenstein, and E. Danchin. 2004. Female choice of young sperm in a genetically monogamous bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:S134–S137.']
  • ['Zuk, M., R. Thornhill, J. D. Ligon, K. Johnson, S. Austad, S. H. Ligon, N. W. Thornhill, et al. 1990. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. American Naturalist 136:459–473.']