Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus beetles inseminate so many sperm?

  • P.E. Eady


Male Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) inseminate more sperm than females can effectively store in their spermathecae. This study examines the adaptive significance of “excess” sperm transfer by measuring components of male and female reproductive success in response to manipulating the number of sperm inseminated. The number of sperm transferred during copulation was reduced from 56,000 ±4,462 to 8,700±1,194 by sequentially mating males to virgin females. Reducing the number of sperm inseminated by the first male to mate had no effect on the extent of sperm precedence, but reducing the number of sperm inseminated by the second male resulted in a significant reduction in the extent of sperm precedence. When large numbers of sperm are inseminated the remating refractory period of females is increased. These results indicate that males transferring large numbers of sperm during copulation have a two-fold advantage at fertilization; they are more effective at preempting previously stored sperm and they are likely to father more offspring by delaying the time of female remating. The transfer of “excess” sperm does not appear to serve as nonpromiscuous male mating effort; the number of eggs laid, their fertility and the subsequent survival of zygotes were unaffected by manipulating the number of sperm inseminated. The underlying mechanisms of sperm precedence were also examined. Simple models of sperm displacement failed to accurately predict the patterns of sperm precedence observed in this species. However, the results do not provide conclusive evidence against the models but rather serve to highlight our limited understanding of the movement of sperm within the female's reproductive tract.

Key words

Bruchidae Sperm competition Sperm number manipulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker RR, Bellis MA (1988) “Kamikaze” sperm in mammals? Anim Behav 36: 936–939Google Scholar
  2. Baker RR, Bellis MA (1989) Elaboration of the kamikaze sperm hypothesis: a reply to Harcourt. Anim Behav 37: 865–867Google Scholar
  3. Baumann H (1974) Biological effects of paragonial substances PS1 and PS2 on females of Drosophila funebris. J Insect Physio 20: 2347–2362Google Scholar
  4. Bedford JM (1970) The saga of mammalian sperm from ejaculation to syngamy. In: Gibian H, Plotz EJ, (eds) Mammalian reproduction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 124–182Google Scholar
  5. Brauer A (1944) Influence of population number on egg production in the four spotted pea beetle, Bruchus quadrimaculatus Fabr. Trans K Acad Sci 11: 56–62Google Scholar
  6. Brillard JP, Bakst MR (1991) Quantification of spermatozoa in the sperm-storage tubules of turkey hens and its relation to sperm numbers in the perivitelline layer of eggs. Biol Reprod 43: 271–275Google Scholar
  7. Cohen J (1973) Crossovers, sperm redundancy and their close association. Heredity 31: 408–413Google Scholar
  8. Eady PE (1991) Sperm competition in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): a comparison of two methods used to estimate paternity. Ecol Entomol 16: 45–53Google Scholar
  9. Eady PE (1992) Sperm competition in Callosobruchus maculatus. Ph.D. Thesis, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  10. Eady PE (1994) Intraspecific variation in sperm precedence in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Ecol Entomol 19: 11–16Google Scholar
  11. Eady PE (1994b) Sperm transfer and storage in relation to sperm competition in Callosobruchus maculatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35: 123–129Google Scholar
  12. Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhard WG (1990) Animal genitalia and female choice. Am Sci 78: 134–141Google Scholar
  14. Fox CW (1993) Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Fund Ecol 7: 203–208Google Scholar
  15. Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (1993) Mechanisms of sperm competition: linking physiology and behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8: 95–100Google Scholar
  16. Gwynne DT (1984a) Male mating effort, confidence of paternity and insect sperm competition. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London, pp 117–149Google Scholar
  17. Gwynne DT (1984b) Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature 307: 361–363Google Scholar
  18. Gwynne DT (1986) Courtship feeding in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): investment in offspring or in obtaining fertilizations. Am Nat 128: 342–352Google Scholar
  19. Harcourt AH (1989) Deformed sperm are probably not adaptive. Anim Behav 37: 863–865Google Scholar
  20. Harcourt AH (1991) Sperm competition and the evolution of nonfertilizing sperm in mammals. Evolution 45: 314–328Google Scholar
  21. Huck UW, Lisk RD, Thierjung C (1985) Stimulus requirements for pregnancy initiation in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) change with time of mating during the reproductive period. J Reprod Fertil 76: 449–458Google Scholar
  22. Huignard J (1974) Influence de la copulation sur la fonction reproductice femelle chez Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Coléoptère: Bruchidae). I. Copulation et spermatophore. Ann Sci Nat Zool Paris 16: 361–434Google Scholar
  23. Huignard J, Quesneau-Thierry A, Barbier M (1977) Isolement, action biologique et evolution des substances paragoniales contenues dans le spermatophore d'Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptere). J Insect Physiol 23: 351–357Google Scholar
  24. Lessells CM, Birkhead TR (1990) Mechanisms of sperm competition in birds: mathematical models. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27: 325–337Google Scholar
  25. Marshall LD, McNeil JN (1989) Spermatophore mass as an estimate of male nutrient investment: a closer look in Pseudaletia unipuncta (Haworth) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Funct Ecol 3: 605–612Google Scholar
  26. Maynard-Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47: 209–221Google Scholar
  27. Mukerji D, Hakim Bhuya MA (1973) Reproductive system of the bruchid beetles Bruchus quadrimaculatus Fabr. Bruchus (Callosobruchus) chinensis L., (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). J Morphol 61: 175–221Google Scholar
  28. Ouedraogo AP (1978) Étude de quelques aspects de la biologie de Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coléoptère: Bruchidae) et de l'influence des facteurs externes stimulants (plante hôte et copulation) sur l'activité reproductrice de la femelle. Thése Université Paul Sabatier; Thése Mme Cycle, Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45: 525–567Google Scholar
  30. Parker GA (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  31. Parker GA, Simmons LW (1991) A model of constant random sperm displacement during mating: evidence from Scatophaga. Proc R Soc Lond B 249: 107–115Google Scholar
  32. Parker GA, Baker RR, Smith VGF (1972) The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. J Theor Biol 36: 529–553Google Scholar
  33. Parker GA, Simmons LW, Kirk H (1990) Analysing sperm competition data: simple models for predicting mechanisms. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27: 55–65Google Scholar
  34. Sugawara T (1979) Stretch receptors in the bursa copulatoox of the butterfly, Pieris rapae crucivora, and its role in behaviour. J Comp Physiol 130: 191–199Google Scholar
  35. Svard L, Wiklund C (1991) The effect of ejaculate mass on female reproductive output in the European swallowtail butterfly, Papilio machaon (L.)(Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). J Insect Behav 4: 33–41Google Scholar
  36. Turner ME, Anderson WW (1983) Multiple mating and female fitness in Drosophila pseudoobseura. Evolution 37: 714–723Google Scholar
  37. Wickler W (1985) Stepfathers in insects and their pseudo-parental investment. Z Tierpsychol 69: 72–78Google Scholar
  38. Wilson K, Hill L (1989) Factors affecting egg maturation in the bean weevil Callosobruchus maculatus. Physiol Entomol 14: 115–126Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P.E. Eady
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology CentreUniversity of SunderlandSunderlandU.K.

Personalised recommendations