Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males


Paternity is often determined by competition between the ejaculates of different males1. Males can also use particular behaviours or structures to manipulate how females use sperm2,3,4,5. However, the ability of females to bias sperm utilization in favour of preferred males independently of male manipulation has not been demonstrated6. Females are predicted to respond differentially to the sperm of different males when the reproductive interests of the sexes differ and when females are coerced into copulating4,6. Here we show that in female feral fowl most copulations are coerced, and that females consistently bias sperm retention in favour of the preferred male phenotype. Females prefer to copulate with dominant males, but when sexually coerced by subordinate males, they manipulate the behaviour of dominant males to reduce the likelihood of insemination. If this fails, females differentially eject ejaculates according to male status in the absence of any male manipulation and preferentially retain the sperm of dominant males.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Male status and sperm ejections.


  1. 1

    Parker, G. A. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol. Rev. 45, 525–567 ( 1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Davies, N. B. Polyandry, cloaca-pecking and sperm competition in dunnocks. Nature 302, 334–336 ( 1983).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Otronen, M. Mating behavior and sperm competition in the fly, Dryomyza anilis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 349– 356 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Eberhard, W. G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Edvardsson, M. & Arnqvist, G. Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in red flour beetles Tribolium castaneum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 559–563 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Birkhead, T. R. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female choice of sperm. Evolution 52, 1212–1218 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Darwin, C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Murray, London, 1871).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Wiley, H. R. & Poston, J. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50, 1371–1381 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Parker, G. A. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49, 1345 –1365 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Pizzari, T. Reproductive strategies in feral fowl, Gallus gallus. Thesis, Univ. Sheffield (1999).

  11. 11

    Jones, M. J. J. & Mench, J. Behavioral correlates of male mating success in multisire flocks as determined by DNA fingerprinting. Poultry Sci. 70, 1493– 1498 (1991).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Cheng, K. M. & Burns, J. T. Dominance relationship and mating behavior of domestic cocks—a model to study mate-guarding and sperm competition in birds. Condor 90, 697– 704 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Craig, J. V., Ortman, L. L. & Guhl, A. M. Genetic selection for social dominance ability in chicks. Anim. Behav. 13, 114– 131 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Allen, T. E. & Grigg, G. W. Sperm transport in the fowl. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 8, 788–799 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Thornhill, R. in Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences (eds Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P.) 82 (Academic, London, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Etches, R. J. Reproduction in Poultry (CAB International, Oxon, 1996 ).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, J. F. Biometry 2nd edn (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1981).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Parker, J. E., McKenzie, F. F. & Kempster, H. L. Fertility in the male domestic fowl. Univ. Miss. Agric. Exp. Station Bull. 347, 1– 50 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Simmons, L. W. Sperm competition as a mechanism of female choice in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21 , 197–202 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Clark, A. G., Begun, D. J. & Prout, T. Female × male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283, 217– 220 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 69–75 ( 1997).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Birkhead, T. R., Martinez, J. G., Burke, T. & Froman, D. Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1759– 1764 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Cunningham, E. J. A. & Cheng, K. M. Biases in sperm use in the mallard: no evidence for selection by females on sperm genotype. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 905– 910 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Martin, P. A., Reimers, T. J., Lodge, J. R. & Dziuk, P. J. The effect of ratios and numbers of spermatozoa mixed from two males on proportions of offspring. J. Reprod. Fertil. 39, 251 –258 (1974).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Sheldon, B. C. Sexually transmitted disease in birds: occurrence and evolutionary significance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 39, 491– 497 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Chapman, T., Liddle, L. F., Kalb, J. M., Wolfner, M. F. & Partridge, L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373, 241–244 ( 1995).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Harrison, B. Den Svenska dvärghönan. II. Sven. Rasf. Tidskrift 1, 12–14 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Gibson, R. M. & Guinness, F. E. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim. Behav. 27, 211– 225 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Ishikawa, H. The life duration of cock spermatozoa outside the body. Proc. World Poult. Fourth Congr. 90–94 ( 1930).

  30. 30

    Bakst, M. R. & Cecil, H. C. (eds) Techniques for Semen Evaluation, Semen Storage, and Fertility Determination (Poultry Sci. Assoc., Savoy, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank N. Andbjer, A. Bylin and C. K. Cornwallis for technical assistance, S. Jakobsson for providing facilities, A. P. Balmford, T. A. Burke, N. B. Davies, B. J. Hatchwell, F. M. Hunter, C. M. Lessells and P. J. Warren for comments. T.P. was supported by a Patrick & Irwin Packington Fellowship and T.R.B. by a grant from the National Environmental Research Council.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Pizzari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pizzari, T., Birkhead, T. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405, 787–789 (2000).

Download citation

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing