Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 557–565 | Cite as

Sperm morphology, swimming velocity, and longevity in the house sparrow Passer domesticus

  • Fabrice Helfenstein
  • Murielle Podevin
  • Heinz Richner
Original Paper


Sperm competition exerts strong selection on males to produce spermatozoa with an optimal morphology that maximizes their fertilization success. Long sperm were first suggested to be favored because they should swim faster. However, studies that investigated the relationship between sperm length and sperm competitive ability or sperm swimming velocity yielded contradictory results. More recently, ratios of the different sections of a spermatozoon (the head, midpiece, and flagellum) were suggested to be more crucial in determining swimming velocity. Additionally, sperm ability to remain and survive in the female storage organs may also influence fertilization success, so that optimal sperm morphology may rather maximize sperm longevity than velocity. In this study, we investigated how sperm morphology is related to sperm velocity and sperm longevity in the house sparrow Passer domesticus. Sperm velocity was found to be correlated with head/flagellum ratio. Sperm with small heads relative to their flagellum showed higher swimming velocity. Additionally, shorter sperm were found to live longer. Finally, we found sperm morphological traits to vary substantially within males and the head/flagellum ratio to be unrelated to total sperm length. We discuss the hypothesis that the substantial within-male variation in sperm morphology reflects a male strategy to produce a diversity of sperm from long, fast-swimming to short, long-living sperm to maximize their fertilization success in a context of sperm competition.


Passer domesticus Sperm flagellum Sperm length Sperm longevity Sperm midpiece Sperm morphology Sperm velocity Sperm competition 


  1. Anderson MJ, Dixson AF (2002) Sperm competition: motility and the midpiece in primates. Nature 416:496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkhead TR, Brillard J-P (2007) Reproductive isolation in birds: postcopulatory prezygotic barriers. Trends Ecol Evol 22:266–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkhead TR, Fletcher F (1995) Male phenotype and ejaculate quality in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:329–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Møller AP, Sutherland WJ (1993) Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs? J Theor Biol 161:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkhead TR, Martinez JG, Burke T, Froman DP (1999) Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1759–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briskie JV, Montgomerie R (1992) Sperm size and sperm competition in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 247:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briskie JV, Montgomerie R, Birkhead TR (1997) The evolution of sperm size in birds. Evolution 51:937–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calhim S, Immler S, Birkhead TR (2007) Postcopulatory sexual selection is associated with reduced variation in sperm morphology. PLoS ONE 2:e413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardullo RA, Baltz JM (1991) Metabolic regulation in mammalian sperm: mitochondrial volume determines sperm length and flagellar beat frequency. Cell Motil Cytoskelet 19:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwallis CK, Birkhead TR (2007) Changes in sperm quality and numbers in response to experimental manipulation of male social status and female attractiveness. Am Nat 170:758–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dean R, Bonsall MB, Pizzari T (2007) Aging and sexual conflict. Science 316:383–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Froman DP (2003) Deduction of a model for sperm storage in the oviduct of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol Reprod 69:248–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Froman DP, Feltmann AJ (2000) Sperm mobility: phenotype in roosters (Gallus domesticus) determined by concentration of motile sperm and straight line velocity. Biol Reprod 62:303–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Froman DP, Feltmann AJ, Rhoads ML, Kirby JD (1999) Sperm mobility: a primary determinant of fertility in the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol Reprod 61:400–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 269:607–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gage MJG, Macfarlane C, Yeates S, Shackleton R, Parker GA (2002) Relationships between sperm morphometry and sperm motility in the Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 61:1528–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gage MJG, Macfarlane CP, Yeates S, Ward RG, Searle JB, Parker GA (2004) Spermatozoal traits and sperm competition in Atlantic salmon: relative sperm velocity is the primary determinant of fertilization success. Curr Biol 14:44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. García-Gonzáles F, Simmons LW (2007) Shorter sperm confer higher competitive fertilization success. Evolution 61:816–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (1991) Sperm competition influences sperm size in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 243:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (2008) Implications of diversity in sperm size and function for sperm competition and fertility. Int J Dev Biol 52:439–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Helfenstein F, Szép T, Nagy Z, Kempenaers B, Wagner RH (2008) Between-male variation in sperm size, velocity and longevity in sand martins Riparia riparia. J Avian Biol 39:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt C, Holt WV, Moore HDM, Reed HC, Curnock RM (1997) Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. J Androl 18:312–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Humphries S, Evans JP, Simmons LW (2008) Sperm competition: linking form and function. BMC Evol Biol 8:319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Immler S, Birkhead TR (2007) Sperm competition and sperm midpiece size: no consistent pattern in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Immler S, Saint-Jalme M, Lesobre L, Sorci G, Roman Y, Birkhead TR (2007) The evolution of sperm morphometry in pheasants. J Evol Biol 20:1008–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleven O, Laskemoen T, Lifjeld JT (2009) Sperm length in sand martins Riparia riparia: a comment on Helfenstein et al. J Avian Biol 40:241–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LaMunyon CW, Ward S (1998) Larger sperm outcompete smaller sperm in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1997–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laskemoen T, Kleven O, Fossoy F, Lifjeld JT (2007) Intraspecific variation in sperm length in two passerine species, the bluethroat Luscinia svecica and the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus. Ornis Fenn 84:131–139Google Scholar
  29. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  30. Lüpold S, Linz GM, Birkhead TR (2009a) Sperm design and variation in the New World blackbirds (Icteridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lüpold S, Calhim S, Immler S, Birkhead TR (2009b) Sperm morphology and sperm velocity in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malo AF, Gomendio M, Garde J, Lang-Lenton B, Soler AJ, Roldan ERS (2006) Sperm design and sperm function. Biol Lett 2:246–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Minoretti N, Baur B (2006) Among- and within-population variation in sperm quality in the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mossman J, Slate J, Humphries S, Birkhead TR (2009) Sperm morphology and velocity are genetically codetermined in the zebra finch. Evolution 63:2730–2737Google Scholar
  35. Møller AP, Mousseau TA, Rudolfsen G, Balbontín J, Marzal A, Hermosell I, De Lope F (2009) Senescent sperm performance in old male birds. J Evol Biol 22:334–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakagawa S (2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol 15:1044–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakagawa S, Ockendon N, Gillespie DOS, Hatchwell BJ, Burke T (2007) Assessing the function of house sparrows' bib size using a flexible meta-analysis method. Behav Ecol 18:831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neff BD, Fu P, Gross MR (2003) Sperm investment and alternative mating tactics in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Behav Ecol 14:634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San Diego, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitcher TE, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2007) Sexual colouration and sperm traits in guppies. J Fish Biol 70:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pizzari T, Parker GA (2009) Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. In: Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S (eds) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic, San Diego, pp 207–245Google Scholar
  43. Pizzari T, Jensen P, Cornwallis CK (2004) A novel test of the phenotype-linked fertility hypothesis reveals independent components of fertility. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pizzari T, Cornwallis CK, Froman DP (2007) Social competitiveness associated with rapid fluctuations in sperm quality in male fowl. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pizzari T, Worley K, Burke T, Froman D (2008a) Sperm competition dynamics: ejaculate fertilising efficiency changes differentially with time. BMC Evol Biol 8:332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pizzari T, Dean R, Pacey A, Moore H, Bonsall MB (2008b) The evolutionary ecology of pre- and post-meiotic sperm senescence. Trends Ecol Evol 23:131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudolfsen G, Figenschou L, Folstad I, Tveiten H, Figenschou M (2006) Rapid adjustments of sperm characteristics in relation to social status. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SAS® (2003) In, vol 9.1, 9.1 edn. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  49. Stockley P, Gage MJG, Parker GA, Møller AP (1997) Sperm competition in fishes: the evolution of testis size and ejaculate characteristics. Am Nat 149:933–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Vladić TV, Järvi T (2001) Sperm quality in the alternative reproductive tactics of Atlantic salmon: the importance of the loaded raffle mechanism. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2375–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson-Leedy JG, Ingermann RL (2007) Development of a novel CASA system based on open source software for characterization of zebrafish sperm motility parameters. Theriogenology 67:661–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolfson A (1952) The cloacal protuberance—a means for determining breeding condition in live male passerines. Bird Banding 23:159–165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Helfenstein
    • 1
  • Murielle Podevin
    • 1
  • Heinz Richner
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolutionary Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations