Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 370–376

Sexual conflict over sperm ejection in monogamous pairs of kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla

  • Fabrice Helfenstein
  • Richard H. Wagner
  • Etienne Danchin
Original Article


Socially monogamous partners suffer conflicting interests concerning various aspects of reproduction such as parental care, copulation and fertilization. Female black-legged kittiwakes commonly eject their mates' sperm immediately following copulations. Because sperm ejection reduces male sperm competitiveness and paternity assurance, males and females have conflicting interests as regards sperm ejection. Males whose mates ejected their sperm at least once remained longer on their mates' backs after the last insemination which apparently prevented the females from ejecting sperm. These results suggest that compelling females to retain their sperm may be a previously unidentified tactic employed by males to assure their paternity. Females tried to prevent their mates from witnessing sperm ejection by ejecting sperm after their mates departed from the nest. Females were more likely to eject sperm when they terminated the copulations by unbalancing the male. The conflict over sperm ejection was related to the ability of the females to end the copulations which covaried with the body mass of their mates. These findings suggest that conflicts in monogamous pairs also exist over the disposition of sperm.


Copulation Kittiwake Monogamy Sexual conflict Sperm ejection 


  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: A morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc Lond B 261:123–127Google Scholar
  3. Bakst MR, Wishart GJ, Brillard J-P (1994) Oviducal sperm selection, transport, and storage in poultry. Poult Sci Rev 5:117–143Google Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR (1998) Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52:1212–1218Google Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1992) Sperm competition in birds. Evolutionary causes and consequences. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1993) Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J Theor Biol 161:51–60Google Scholar
  7. Birkhead TR, Atkin L, Møller AP (1987) Copulation behavior of birds. Behaviour 101:101–138Google Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Veiga JP, Fletcher F (1995) Sperm competition and unhatched eggs in the House Sparrow. J Avian Biol 26:343–345Google Scholar
  9. Blount JD, Møller AP, Houston DC (2001) Antioxidants, showy males and sperm quality. Ecol Lett 4:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolton M, Houston D, Monaghan P (1992) Nutritional constraints on egg formation in the lesser black-backed gull: an experimental study. J Anim Ecol 61:512–532Google Scholar
  11. Brillard J-P, Bakst MR (1990) Quantification of spermatozoa in the sperm-storage tubules of turkey hens and the relation to sperm numbers in the perivitelline layer of eggs. Biol Reprod 43:271–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadiou B (1993) L'accession à la reproduction: un processus social d'ontogenèse. Cas de la mouette tridactyle (Rissa tridactyla). Thesis, Université de Rennes, Rennes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. Cam E, Monnat J-Y (2000) Stratification based on reproductive state reveals contrasting patterns of age-related variation in demographic parameters in the kittiwake. Oïkos 90:560–574Google Scholar
  14. Chardine JW (1986) Interference of copulation in a colony of marked Black-legged Kittiwake. Can J Zool 64:1416–1421Google Scholar
  15. Chardine JW (1987) The influence of pair-status on the breeding behaviour of the Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla before egg-laying. Ibis 129:515–526Google Scholar
  16. Currie D, Thompson DBA, Burke T (2000) Patterns of territory settlement and consequences for breeding success in the Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe. Ibis 142:389–398Google Scholar
  17. Danchin E, Monnat J-Y (1992) Population dynamics modelling of two neighbouring kittiwake Rissa tridactyla colonies. Ardea 80:171–180Google Scholar
  18. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implication for the study of coloniality. Ecology 79:2415–2428Google Scholar
  19. Davies NB (1983) Polyandry, cloaca-pecking and sperm competition in dunnocks. Nature 302:334–336Google Scholar
  20. Dewsbury DA (1982) Ejaculate cost and male choice. Am Nat 119:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  22. Eberhard WG (1998) Female roles in sperm competition. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 91–145Google Scholar
  23. Froman DP, Pizzari T, Feltmann AJ, Castillo-Juarez H, Birkhead TR (2002) Sperm mobility: mechanisms of fertilizing efficiency, genetic variation and phenotypic relationship with male status in the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:607–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ginsberg JR, Huck UW (1989) Sperm competition in mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 4:74–79Google Scholar
  25. Gowaty PA (1996) Battles of the sexes and origins of monogamy. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–52Google Scholar
  26. Green DJ, Krebs EA (1995) Courtship feeding in Ospreys Pandion haliaetus: a criterion for mate assessment ? Ibis 137:35–43Google Scholar
  27. Helfenstein F (2002) Stratégies de reproduction et conflits sexuels: le cas d'une espèce coloniale, la mouette tridactyle Rissa tridactyla. PhD thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  28. Helfenstein F, Wagner RH, Danchin E, Rossi J-M (2003) Functions of courtship feeding in black-leggeg kittiwakes: natural and sexual selection. Anim Behav 65:1027–1033Google Scholar
  29. Hillgarth N (1996) Ectoparasite transfer during mating in ring-necked pheasants Phasianus colchicus. J Avian Biol 27:260–262Google Scholar
  30. Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Rohde PA, Primmer CR, Ellegren H (1998) Sexual conflict over fertilizations: female bluethroats escape male paternity guard. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koyama S, Kamimura S (1999) Lowered sperm motility in subordinate social status of mice. Physiol Behav 65:665–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lodge JR, Fechheimer NS, Jaap RG (1971) The relationship of in vivo sperm storage interval to fertility and embryonic survival in the chicken. Biol Reprod 5:252–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 55–90Google Scholar
  35. Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1993) Cuckoldry and sociality: a comparative study of birds. Am Nat 142:118–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nager R, Rüegger C, Van Noordwijk AJ (1997) Nutrient or energy limitation on egg formation: a feeding experiment in great tits. J Anim Ecol 66:495–507Google Scholar
  37. Neuman J, Chardine JW, Porter JM (1998) Courtship feeding and reproductive success in Black-legged Kittiwakes. Colon Waterbirds 21:73–80Google Scholar
  38. Olsson M (1999) Sperm choice and sperm competition: suggestions for field and laboratory studies. Oïkos 84:172–175Google Scholar
  39. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelström H (1996) Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585Google Scholar
  40. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramsay SL, Houston DC (1997) Nutritional constraints on egg production in the blue tit: a supplementary feeding study. J Anim Ecol 66:649–657Google Scholar
  42. SAS (1999) SAS user's guide, v. 8.02. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Siva-Jothy MT (2000) The young sperm gambit. Ecol Lett 3:172–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sokal RR, Rohlf JF (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagner RH (1991) Evidence that female razorbills control extra-pair copulations. Behaviour 118:157–169Google Scholar
  48. Wagner RH (1996) Why do female birds reject copulations from their mates? Ethology 102:465–480Google Scholar
  49. Wiggins DA, Morris RD (1986) Criteria for female choice of mates: courtship feeding and parental care in the common tern. Am Nat 128:126–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PE, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1491–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Helfenstein
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard H. Wagner
    • 2
  • Etienne Danchin
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'EcologieUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie Paris Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Konrad Lorenz InstituteAustrian Academy of Sciences ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations