Male Mounting Alone Reduces Female Promiscuity in the Fowl

Abstract

The fertilization success of an insemination is at risk when a female has the possibility to copulate with multiple males, generating sperm competition and sexual conflict over remating. Female propensity to remate is often reduced after copulation, and a staggering diversity of highly derived male traits that discourage female promiscuity have been investigated. However, it is difficult to separate the effect of such specialized traits and insemination products from the more basic effect that the act of mounting per se may have on female remating. Here, we use a novel approach that separates the influence of mounting from that of insemination on female remating in the promiscuous feral fowl. Mounting alone caused a transient but drastic reduction in female propensity to remate, and-crucially-the number of sperm that a female obtained from a new male. Therefore, like other taxa, female fowl show a reduction in promiscuity after copulation, but this is entirely due to mounting alone. This effect of mounting, independent of insemination and fertilization, indicates that even copulations that deliver little or no semen, a puzzling behavior common in many species including the fowl, may play a crucial role in sperm competition.

Relatedness and age reduce aggressive male interactions over mating in domestic fowl

“…when they are young, or if they are currently laying eggs, Løvlie et al 2005;Løvlie and Pizzari 2007), but there was no significant difference in female age between groups with old and young dominant males (unpaired t-test, meanold ± SE = 2.97 ± 0.45 years, meanyoung ± SE = 3.86 ± 0.33 years, t = -1.61, df = 15, p = 0.13), or number of eggs laid in groups (measured as eggs laid between the first and second observation evening, unpaired t-test, meanold ± SE = 1.78 ± 0.32 eggs, meanyoung ± SE = 1.4 ± 0.28 eggs, t = 0.76, df = 15, p = 0.46).…”

A cry for help: female distress calling during copulation is context dependent

“…Copulation attempts were recorded as initiated by a female when females actively solicited copulations by crouching in front of the male (sensu Løvlie et al, 2005;Løvlie & Pizzari, 2007). All other copulation attempts were recorded as initiated by a male.…”

“…All other copulation attempts were recorded as initiated by a male. Female willingness to mate was also scored by recording whether any resistance was observed during a copulation attempt (sensu Løvlie et al, 2005;Løvlie & Pizzari, 2007). Only copulation attempts resulting in mounting were recorded as 'copulations'.…”

“…Pizzari et al, 2003;Løvlie et al, 2005;Zidar & Løvlie 2012;Favati et al, 2014), thus allowing us to catch the birds by hand, and observe natural behaviours at a relatively short distance with limited or no signs of stress. The experimental housing used in the current study was very similar to that of the stock housing, with ad libitum access to dust baths, perches, nestboxes, water and feed.…”

“…Female remating propensity is clearly reduced when comparing first versus successive days of access to males and matings, after females have been sexually rested and housed without males for 14 days, which is the mean time for which females store sperm (Løvlie et al, 2005;Løvlie & Pizzari, 2007 and references therein). Therefore, females were housed in groups with multiple, sexually active males (more than five males not taking part in the experiment) up until 2 days prior to the experiment.…”