Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 899–909 | Cite as

Sperm design and variation in the New World blackbirds (Icteridae)

  • Stefan LüpoldEmail author
  • George M. Linz
  • Tim R. Birkhead
Original Paper


Post-copulatory sexual selection (PCSS) is thought to be one of the evolutionary forces responsible for the rapid and divergent evolution of sperm design. However, whereas in some taxa particular sperm traits are positively associated with PCSS, in other taxa, these relationships are negative, and the causes of these different patterns across taxa are poorly understood. In a comparative study using New World blackbirds (Icteridae), we tested whether sperm design was influenced by the level of PCSS and found significant positive associations with the level of PCSS for all sperm components but head length. Additionally, whereas the absolute length of sperm components increased, their variation declined with the intensity of PCSS, indicating stabilising selection around an optimal sperm design. Given the diversity of, and strong selection on, sperm design, it seems likely that sperm phenotype may influence sperm velocity within species. However, in contrast to other recent studies of passerine birds, but consistent with several other studies, we found no significant link between sperm design and velocity, using four different species that vary both in sperm design and PCSS. Potential reasons for this discrepancy between studies are discussed.


Sperm competition Sperm morphology Sperm velocity Phylogenetic analysis Passerine birds 



We thank J. Homan, P. Llambias, N. López, D. Ortiz, L. Reinhardt, J. Ross, C. and F. Ruiz, K. Soria and A. Trutsch for their help in the field. Additional sperm samples were provided by the Alaska Bird Observatory, Bird Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Museo de La Plata Buenos Aires, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology UC Davis, Proyecto Recuperación de la Mariquita, M. Avery, A. Azpiroz, M. Conway, K. Ellison, D. Elwonger, A. Fonseca, S. Immler, W. Janousek, R. Keith, D. Maddox, R. Meese, B. Ortiz, B. Peer, T. Pepps, N. Perlut, R. Rehmeier, J. Rivers, V. Rohwer, B. Sandercock, W. Ward, C. Willis and G. Young. We also thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on our manuscript. S. L. was supported by the Janggen-Poehn Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, a Sheffield University Overseas Research Student Award, a Lauff Research Award and an NSF LTER Graduate Research Award; T. R. B. was funded by the Leverhulme Trust. All samples were collected under licence of the respective institutions or collaborators and, within the US, under an additional collective Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit (MB 131466).

Supplementary material

265_2009_733_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (138 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 137 kb)


  1. Anderson MJ, Dixson AF (2002) Motility and the midpiece in primates. Nature 416:496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G (1997) The evolution of animal genitalia: distinguishing between hypotheses by single species studies. Biol J Linn Soc 60:365–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balshine S, Leach BJ, Neat F, Werner NY, Montgomerie R (2001) Sperm size of African cichlids in relation to sperm competition. Behav Ecol 12:726–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty RA (1970) The genetics of the mammalian gamete. Biol Rev 45:73–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatty RA (1972) The genetics of size and shape of spermatozoan organelles. In: Glueckson-Waelsch S (ed) The genetics of the spermatozoa. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 97–115Google Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR, Martínez 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
  7. Birkhead TR, Pellatt EJ, Brekke P, Yeates R, Castillo-Juarez H (2005) Genetic effects on sperm design in the zebra finch. Nature 434:383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briskie JV, Montgomerie R (1992) Sperm size and sperm competition in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 247:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briskie JV, Montgomerie R, Birkhead TR (1997) The evolution of sperm size in birds. Evolution 51:937–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burness G, Casselman SJ, Schulte-Hostedde AI, Moyes CD, Montgomerie R (2004) Sperm swimming speed and energetics vary with sperm competition risk in bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burrows WH, Quinn JP (1937) The collection of spermatozoa from domestic fowl and turkey. Poult Sci 16:19–24Google Scholar
  12. Byrne PG, Simmons LW, Roberts JD (2003) Sperm competition and the evolution of gamete morphology in frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2079–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calhim S, Birkhead TR (2007) Testes size in birds: quality versus quantity—assumptions, errors, and estimates. Behav Ecol 18:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calhim S, Immler S, Birkhead TR (2007) Postcopulatory sexual selection is associated with reduced variation in sperm morphology. PLoS ONE 2:e413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000413 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Cohen J (1977) Reproduction. Butterworths, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 170:758–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dybas LK, Dybas HS (1981) Coadaptation and taxonomic differentiation of sperm and spermathecae in featherwing beetles. Evolution 35:168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberhard WG (1991) Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in insects. Biol Rev 66:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitzpatrick JL, Desjardins JK, Milligan N, Montgomerie R, Balshine S (2007) Reproductive-tactic-specific variation in sperm swimming speeds in a shell-brooding cichlid. Biol Reprod 77:280–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitzpatrick JL, Montgomerie R, Desjardins JK, Stiver KA, Kolm N, Balshine S (2009) Female promiscuity promotes the evolution of faster sperm in cichlid fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:1128–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franzén Å (1970) Phylogenetic aspects of the morphology of spermatozoa and spermiogenesis. In: Baccetti B (ed) Comparative spermatology. Academic Press, New York, pp 29–45Google Scholar
  25. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160:712–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Froman DP, Feltmann AJ (1998) Sperm mobility: a quantitative trait of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol Reprod 58:379–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gage MJG (1994) Associations between body size, mating pattern, testis size and sperm lengths across butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B 258:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gage MJG, Freckleton RP (2003) Relative testis size and sperm morphometry across mammals: no evidence for an association between sperm competition and sperm length. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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 14:44–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP (2007) Prevalence of avian influenza and host ecology. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2003–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. García-Berthou E (2001) On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 70:708–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garland T, Carter PA (1994) Evolutionary physiology. Annu Rev Physiol 56:579–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (1991) Sperm competition influences sperm size in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 243:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris WE, Moore AJ, Moore PJ (2007) Variation in sperm size within and between ejaculates in a cockroach. Funct Ecol 21:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Harvey PH, Purvis A (1991) Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature 351:619–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Higdon JJL (1979) A hydrodynamic analysis of flagellar propulsion. J Fluid Mech 90:685–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holt WV, Shenfield F, Leonard T, Hartmann TD, North RD, Moore HDM (1989) The value of sperm swimming speed measurements in assessing the fertility of human frozen semen. Hum Reprod 4:292–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphries S, Evans JP, Simmons LW (2008) Sperm competition: linking form to function. BMC Evol Biol 8:319. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-319 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Immler S, Birkhead TR (2005) A non-invasive method for obtaining spermatozoa from birds. Ibis 147:827–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Immler S, Saint-Jalme M, Lesobre L, Sorci G, Roman Y, Birkhead TR (2007) The evolution of sperm morphometry in pheasants. J Evol Biol 20:1008–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Immler S, Calhim S, Birkhead TR (2008) Increased postcopulatory sexual selection reduces the intramale variation in sperm design. Evolution 62:1538–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jamieson BGM (1987) The ultrastructure and phylogeny of insect spermatozoa. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Katz DF, Drobnis EZ, Overstreet JW (1989) Factors regulating mammalian sperm migration through the female reproductive tract and oocyte vestments. Gamete Res 22:443–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kleven O, Laskemoen T, Fossøy F, Robertson RJ, Lifjeld JT (2008) Intraspecific variation in sperm length is negatively related to sperm competition in passerine birds. Evolution 62:494–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. LaMunyon CW, Ward S (1998) Larger sperm outcompete smaller sperm in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1997–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. LaMunyon CW, Ward S (1999) Evolution of sperm size in nematodes: sperm competition favours larger sperm. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levitan DR (2000) Sperm velocity and longevity trade off each other and influence fertilization in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Locatello L, Pilastro A, Deana R, Zarpellon A, Rasatto MB (2007) Variation pattern of sperm quality traits in two gobies with alternative mating tactics. Funct Ecol 21:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lüpold S, Calhim S, Immler S, Birkhead TR (2009a) Sperm morphology and sperm velocity in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lüpold S, Linz GM, Rivers JW, Westneat DF, Birkhead TR (2009b) Sperm competition selects beyond relative testes size in birds. Evolution 63:391–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Malo AF, Garde JJ, Soler AJ, Garcia AJ, Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (2005a) Male fertility in natural populations of red deer is determined by sperm velocity and the proportion of normal spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 72:822–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M (2005b) Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Malo AF, Gomendio M, Garde J, Lang-Lenton B, Soler AJ, Roldan ERS (2006) Sperm design and sperm function. Biol Lett 2:246–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martins EP, Hansen TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am Nat 149:646–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller GT, Pitnick S (2002) Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230–1233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Moore HDM, Akhondi MA (1996) Fertilizing capacity of rat spermatozoa is correlated with decline in strait-line velocity measured by continuous computer-aided sperm analysis: epididymal rat spermatozoa from the proximal cauda have a greater fertilizing capacity in vitro than those from the distal cauda or vas deferens. J Androl 17:50–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Morrow EH, Gage MJG (2001a) Artificial selection and heritability of sperm length in Gryllus bimaculatus. Heredity 87:356–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morrow EH, Gage MJG (2001b) Consistent significant variation between individual males in spermatozoal morphometry. J Zool 254:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mossman J (2008) The role of mitochondrial genetic variation on sperm function: empirical tests of the Frank and Hurst hypothesis. Ph.D. thesis. University of Sheffield, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  64. Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pagel MD, Harvey PH (1989) Comparative methods for examining adaptation depend on evolutionary models. Folia Primatol 53:203–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:526–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parker GA (1993) Sperm competition games: sperm size and sperm number under adult control. Proc R Soc Lond B 253:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 Press, London, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Parker GA, Begon ME (1993) Sperm competition games: sperm size and sperm number under gametic control. Proc R Soc Lond B 253:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pellatt EJ, Birkhead TR (1994) Ejaculate size in zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata and a method for obtaining ejaculates from passerine birds. Ibis 136:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pitcher TE, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2007) Sexual colouration and sperm traits in guppies. J Fish Biol 70:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pitnick S, Hosken DJ, Birkhead TR (2009) Sperm diversity. In: Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S (eds) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Elsevier, London, pp 69–149Google Scholar
  73. Pizzari T, Cornwallis CK, Froman D (2007) Social competitiveness associated with rapid fluctuations in sperm quality in male fowl. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Samour JH, Smith CA, Moore HD, Markham JA (1986) Semen collection and spermatozoa characteristics in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Vet Rec 118:397–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Sivinski J (1980) Sexual selection and insect sperm. Fla Entomol 63:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Snook RR (2005) Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 20:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stoltz JA, Neff BD (2006) Sperm competition in a fish with external fertilization: the contribution of sperm number, speed and length. J Evol Biol 19:1873–1881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Urbach D, Bittner D, Lenz TL, Bernet D, Wahli T, Wedekind C (2007) Sperm velocity in an alpine whitefish: effects of age, size, condition, fluctuating asymmetry and gonad abnormalities. J Fish Biol 71:672–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ward PI (1998) Intraspecific variation in sperm size characters. Heredity 80:655–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Lüpold
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • George M. Linz
    • 3
  • Tim R. Birkhead
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Kellogg Biological StationMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA
  3. 3.USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research CenterBismarckUSA

Personalised recommendations