The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 137 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sperm competition and ejaculate economics
Abstract
Sperm competition was identified in 1970 as a pervasive selective force in post‐copulatory sexual selection that occurs when the ejaculates of different males compete to fertilise a given set of ova. Since then, sperm competition has been much studied both empirically and theoretically. Because sperm competition often favours large ejaculates, an important challenge has been to understand the evolution of strategies through which males invest in sperm production and economise sperm allocation to maximise reproductive success under competitive conditions. Sperm competition mechanisms vary greatly, depending on many factors including the level of sperm competition, space constraints in the sperm competition arena, male mating roles, and female influences on sperm utilisation. Consequently, theoretical models of ejaculate economics are complex and varied, often with apparently conflicting predictions. The goal of this review is to synthesise the theoretical basis of ejaculate economics under sperm competition, aiming to provide empiricists with categorised model assumptions and predictions. We show that apparent contradictions between older and newer models can often be reconciled and there is considerable consensus in the predictions generated by different models. We also discuss qualitative empirical support for some of these predictions, and detail quantitative matches between predictions and observations that exist in the yellow dung fly. We argue that ejaculate economic theory represents a powerful heuristic to explain the diversity in ejaculate traits at multiple levels: across species, across males and within individual males. Future progress requires greater understanding of sperm competition mechanisms, quantification of trade‐offs between ejaculate allocation and numbers of matings gained, further knowledge of mechanisms of female sperm selection and their associated costs, further investigation of non‐sperm ejaculate effects, and theoretical integration of pre‐ and post‐copulatory episodes of sexual selection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolution and the Theory of Games
Smith, J. M. (1982) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806292 · Cited by 6,922
Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem
Charnov, E. L. (1976) · Theoretical Population Biology · doi:10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x · Cited by 5,374
SPERM COMPETITION AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES IN THE INSECTS
PARKER, G. A. (1970) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1970.tb01176.x · Cited by 3,596
Self-citationThe Optimal Balance between Size and Number of Offspring
Smith, C. C., & Fretwell, S. D. (1974) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282929 · Cited by 2,918
Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice
Eberhard, W. (1996) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691207209 · Cited by 2,749
Endless Forms: Species and Speciation
Howard, D. J., & Berlocher, S. H. (1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,490
The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems
Thornhill, R., & Alcock, J. (1983) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674433960 · Cited by 1,954
Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia
Eberhard, W. G. (1985) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674330702 · Cited by 1,830
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2005) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400850600 · Cited by 1,619
SEXUAL SELECTION AND SEXUAL CONFLICT
Parker, G. A. (1979) · Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-108750-0.50010-0 · Cited by 1,370
Self-citation
Cited by
Postmating Female Control: 20 Years of Cryptic Female Choice
Firman, R. C., Gasparini, C., Manier, M. K., & Pizzari, T. (2017) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.010 · Cited by 403
Self-citationSperm wars and the evolution of male fertility
Simmons, L. W., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2012) · Reproduction · doi:10.1530/rep-12-0285 · Cited by 346
Running with the Red Queen: the role of biotic conflicts in evolution
Brockhurst, M. A., Chapman, T., King, K. C., Mank, J. E., Paterson, S., & Hurst, G. D. D. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1382 · Cited by 332
Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating
Kvarnemo, C., & Simmons, L. W. (2013) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0042 · Cited by 254
Odor Communication and Mate Choice in Rodents
Ferkin, M. (2018) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology7010013 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, G. A., & Pizzari, T.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-06-16
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 897-934
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2022137607
- Cited by
- 619
- References
- 137
- FWCI
- 4.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00140.x
- The paper
- Parker, G. A., & Pizzari, T. (2010). Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00140.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.