Post‐copulatory Reproductive Strategies

Rhonda R Snook, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Tommaso Pizzari, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Published online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003664.pub2

In most sexually reproducing organisms females obtain sperm from multiple males. Such widespread female promiscuity prolongs the operation of sexual selection after copulation, through the competition of the ejaculates of different males over fertilisation (sperm competition) and mechanisms by which females systematically bias the outcome of sperm competition (cryptic female choice – CFC). Post‐copulatory sexual selection can either consistently favour certain male or ejaculate phenotypes or certain combinations of male and female genotypes. Sperm competition and CFC drive the evolution of a diverse range of post‐copulatory strategies resulting in differential ejaculate allocation by males and differential sperm utilisation by females. The post‐copulatory reproductive strategies of each sex have considerable impact on the fitness of the opposite sex, giving rise to an intimate process of intersexual coevolution. The concept of post‐copulatory sexual selection is therefore a powerful heuristic tool to explain variation in individual fitness and the staggering variation in sexual strategies both across and within species.

Key Concepts:

  • Sexual selection, or intrasexual competition for mates and fertilisation, can continue after copulation when females mate with multiple males (polyandry).
  • The post‐copulatory processes of sperm competition and cryptic female choice are equivalent to pre‐copulatory mate competition and female choice.
  • Molecular and behavioural studies have demonstrated the female multiple mating is nearly ubiquitous and therefore post‐copulatory sexual selection is a major evolutionary force.
  • Sperm competition occurs when the ejaculates of different males compete to fertilise the same set of eggs, and selects for male adaptations both to prevent and win such competition
  • A male's relative share of paternity is increased through adaptations of sperm quantity and quality, in addition to behavioural, morphological and physiological adaptations in somatic traits.
  • Cryptic female choice (CFC) refers to female‐driven biases in the outcome of sperm competition, which are repeatable within females. CFC and sperm competition are often difficult to distinguish because they can interact to bias sperm use.
  • Females have a wide variety of adaptations that mediate CFC; examples include differential sperm ejection, spermicide, and differential maternal allocation.
  • Patterns of CFC can either differ between different combinations of male and female genotypes, or be consistent among females sharing similar preferences.
  • Post‐copulatory sexual selection can foster the maintenance of polymorphism and alternative reproductive strategies within a species.
  • The post‐copulatory reproductive strategies of one sex can reduce the fitness of the other sex, reflecting sexual conflict over mating and fertilisation. Such conflict can fuel sexually antagonistic coevolution of post‐copulatory traits.

Keywords: intrasexual selection; intersexual selection; sperm competition; cryptic female choice; sexual antagonistic coevolution; sexual conflict; adaptation

Figure 1. Different morphologies of insect sperm: (a) the aflagellate sperm of the proturan, Eosentonon transitorium; (b) paired sperm of a firebrat, Thermobia domestica; (c) spermatostyle and spermatozoa from a gyrinid beetle, Dineutus sp.; (d) firefly sperm, Pyractomena barveri; (e) heteromorphic sperm of the symphlan, Symphylella vulgaris; (f) multiflagellate sperm of the termite, Mastotermes darwiniensis. (Modified from Sivinski, 1980. © Florida Entomological Society.)
Figure 2. Post‐copulatory sexual selection and male genitalic evolution in Callosobruchus maculatus. (a) Spines on the male genitalia of some populations are smaller than (b) in other populations. (c) The length of the spines is positively correlated with the proportion of eggs fertilised by the second of two males to inseminate a female. (Modified from Hotzy and Arnqvist, 2009, with permission from Elsevier.)
Figure 3. Different fluorescing sperm from two competing Drosophila melanogaster males in the female reproductive tract. The ventral (or seminal) receptacle (labelled VR) is a long tubular structure and is the primary sperm storage organ. The two spermathecae (labelled SP) are longer‐term sperm storage organs. Both the VR and SP connect to the uterus (UT) of the female, where fertilisation occurs. Within these female structures, the fluorescing green and red rod‐like structures are the sperm heads from transgenic males, one of which carries genes coding for sperm to fluoresce green and the other male carrying genes coding for red fluorescing sperm. (Photo courtesy of S. Pitnick.)
close
 References
    Andersson J, Borg‐Karlson AK and Wiklund C (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male‐transferred antiaphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267: 1271–1275.
    book Arnqvist G and Rowe L (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Berglund A and Rosenqvist G (2003) Sex role reversal in pipefish. Advances in the Study of Behavior 32: 131–167.
    book Birkhead TR and Møller AP (1992) Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences. London: Academic Press.
    book Birkhead TR and Møller AP (1998) Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic Press.
    den Boer SPA, Baer B and Boomsma JJ (2010) Seminal fluid mediates ejaculate competition in social insects. Science 327: 1506–1509.
    Bretman A, Newcombe D and Tregenza T (2009) Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Molecular Ecology 18: 3340–3345.
    Chapman T (2001) Seminal fluid‐mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87: 511–521.
    Clark AG, Dermitzakis ET and Civetta A (1999) Nontransitivity of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Evolution 54: 1030–1035.
    Cornwallis CK and Birkhead TR (2007) Changes in sperm quality and numbers in response to experimental manipulation of male social status and female attractiveness. American Naturalist 170: 758–771.
    Cox RM and Calsbeek R (2010) Cryptic sex‐ratio bias provides indirect genetic benefits despite sexual conflict. Science 328: 92–94.
    Crudgington HS, Fellows S, Badcock NS and Snook RR (2009) Experimental manipulation of sexual selection promotes greater mating capacity but does not alter sperm investment. Evolution 63: 929–938.
    book Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
    Dean R, Nakagawa S and Pizzari T (2011) The risk and intensity of sperm ejection in female birds. American Naturalist 178: 343–354.
    book Eberhard WG (1996) Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Fisher HS and Hoekstra HE (2010) Competition drives cooperation among closely related sperm of deer mice. Nature 463: 801–803.
    Fitzpatrick JL, Montgomerie R, Desjardins JK et al. (2009) Female promiscuity promotes the evolution of faster sperm in cichlid fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 1128–1132.
    Gallup GG, Burch RL, Zappieri ML et al. (2003) The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 277–289.
    Holman L (2009) Drosophila melanogaster seminal fluid can protect the sperm of other males. Functional Ecology 23: 180–186.
    Holman L and Snook RR (2008) A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female‐mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Current Biology 26: 292–296.
    Hotzy C and Arnqvist G (2009) Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Current Biology 19: 404–407.
    Howard DJ (1999) Conspecific sperm precedence and pollen precedence and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 109–132.
    Kelly CD and Jennions MD (2011) Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta‐analyses of strategic ejaculation. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469‐185X.2011.00175.x
    Kvarnemo C and Simmons LW (2004) Testes investment and spawning mode in pipefishes and seahorses (Syngnathidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83: 369–376.
    Levitan DR (2004) Density‐dependent sexual selection in external fertilizers: variances in male and female fertilization success along the continuum from sperm limitation to sexual conflict in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus fransiscanus. American Naturalist 164: 298–309.
    Locatello L, Pilastro A, Deana R, Zarpello A and Rasotto MB (2007) Pattern of variation in sperm quality traits in two gobies with alternative mating tactics. Functional Ecology 21: 975–981.
    Manier MK, Belote JM, Berben KS et al. (2010) Resolving mechanisms of competitive fertilization success in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 328: 354–357.
    Moreira PL, Nunes VL, MartÍn J and Paulo OS (2007) Copulatory plugs do not assure high first male fertilization success: sperm displacement in a lizard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62: 281–288.
    Paczolt KA and Jones AG (2010) Post‐copulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464: 401–404.
    Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biological Review 45: 525–567.
    book Parker GA (1998) "Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base". In: Birkhead TR and Møller AP (eds) Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, pp. 3–54. London: Academic Press.
    Parker GA and Pizzari T (2010) Sperm competition and ejaculate dynamics. Biological Reviews 85: 897–934.
    Perry JC and Rowe L (2010) Condition‐dependent ejaculate size and composition in a ladybird beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 277: 3639–3647.
    Pitnick S and Brown WD (2000) Criteria for demonstrating female sperm choice. Evolution 54: 1052–1056.
    book Pitnick S, Hosken DJ and Birkhead TR (2009) "Sperm morphological diversity". In: Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ and Pitnick S (eds) Sperm Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective, pp. 69–148. Oxford: Academic Press.
    Pizzari T and Foster KR (2008) Sperm sociality: cooperation, altruism and spite. PLoS Biology 6: e130.
    Pizzari T, Løvlie H and Cornwallis CK (2004) Sex‐specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271: 2115–2121.
    Pizzari T, Worley K, Burke T and Froman DP (2008) Sperm competition dynamics: ejaculate fertilising efficiency changes differentially with time. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 332.
    Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW and Wilson K (2003) Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal: the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive success. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 270: 633–640.
    Ramm SA, Parker GA and Stockley P (2005) Sperm competition and the evolution of male reproductive anatomy. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 272: 949–955.
    Rugman‐Jones PF and Eady PE (2007) Conspecific sperm precedence in Callosobruchus subinnotatus (Coleoptera:Bruchidae): mechanisms and consequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 274: 983–988.
    Simmons LW, Emlen DJ and Tomkins JL (2007) Sperm competition games between sneaks and guards: a comparative analysis using dimorphic male beetles. Evolution 61: 2684–2692.
    Sirot LK, Brockmann HJ and Lapointe SL (2007) Male postcopulatory reproductive success in the beetle, Diaprepes abbreviatus. Animal Behaviour 74: 143–152.
    Sivinski J (1980) Sexual selection and insect sperm. Florida Entomologist 63: 99–111.
    Snook RR (2005) Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 46–53.
    Snook RR and Hosken DJ (2004) Sperm death and dumping in Drosophila. Nature 428: 939–941.
    Taborsky M (1998) Sperm competition in fish: bourgeois males and parasitic spawning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 222–227.
    Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. American Naturalist 122: 765–788.
    Till‐Bottraud I, Joly D, Lachaise D and Snook RR (2005) Pollen and sperm heteromorphism: convergence across kingdoms? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 1–18.
    Urbach D, Folstad I and Rudolfsen G (2005) Effects of ovarian fluid on sperm velocity in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpines). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57: 438–444.
    Waage JK (1979) Dual function of the damselfly penis: sperm removal and transfer. Science 203: 916–918.
    White J, Wagner RH, Helfenstein F et al. (2008) Multiple deleterious effects of experimentally aged sperm in a monogamous bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 13947–13952.
 Further Reading
    book Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    book Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ and Pitnick S (2009) Sperm Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective. Oxford: Academic Press.
    book Parker GA (1979) "Sexual selection and sexual conflict". In: Blum MS and Blum NA (eds) Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, pp. 123–166. New York: Academic Press.
    book Simmons LW (2001) Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    book Trivers RL (1972) "Parental investment and sexual selection". In: Campbell B (ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.

Related Sub-Topics:

Adaptive Evolution | Coevolution | Evolutionary Processes | Selection and Variation | Evolutionary Ecology | Life History and Reproduction
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Post‐copulatory Reproductive Strategies
 
How to Cite close
Snook, Rhonda R, and Pizzari, Tommaso(Jan 2012) Post‐copulatory Reproductive Strategies. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003664.pub2]