Marine Biology

, Volume 145, Issue 5, pp 951–957 | Cite as

The costs of intersexuality: a crustacean perspective

  • A. T. FordEmail author
  • T. F. Fernandes
  • P. A. Read
  • C. D. Robinson
  • I. M. Davies
Research Article


Increasing concerns over rising intersexuality in the animal kingdom and the ability of certain chemicals to disrupt the endocrine system have demanded a better understanding of the costs associated with such conditions. Whilst intersexuality appears relatively widespread throughout gonochoristic crustaceans, i.e. those crustacean species with two separate sexes, the “fitness” costs have rarely been reported. Through comparable investigation of normal and intersex specimens of the highly abundant marine/estuarine amphipod Echinogammarus marinus (Leach) these “fitness costs” were determined. Measurements taken to assess fitness costs included fecundity, fertility and embryonic development, maturation period, and any morphological deformities that might result in reduced pairing success. Results from this study suggest that intersex E. marinus suffer from reduced fecundity and fertility, and mature at a larger size than normal specimens. These fitness costs can also, to a certain extent, be related to the degree of intersexuality. It is suggested that the increased size and morphological abnormalities observed in intersexes may result in reduced pairing success. Investigations into intersex organisms, i.e. those organisms with known dysfunctional endocrine systems, and the costs associated with such conditions, should aid researchers in assessing effects at the population and community level.


Brood Size Fitness Cost Canonical Discriminant Analysis Sexual Phenotype Genital Papilla 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank S. Rider and E. Weerman for assistance in data collection and L. Ramage and S. Pettersson for their help in field sampling.


  1. Block DS, Bejarano AC, Chandler GT (2003) Ecdysteroid concentrations through various life-stages of the meiobenthic harpacticoid copepod, Amphiacus tenuiremis and the benthic estuarine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus. Gen Comp Endocrinol 132:151–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Buikema AL, Chester AL, Stevens HR (1980) Intersexuality in Gammarus minus Say. Crustac Suppl (Leiden) 6:112Google Scholar
  3. Bulnheim H-P (1965) Untersuchungen über Intersexualität bei Gammarus duebeni (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Helgol Wiss Meersunters 12:349–394Google Scholar
  4. Charniaux-Cotton H (1954) Decouverte chez un Crustace Amphipode (Orchestia gammarella) d’une glande endocrine responsable de la differenciation des caractecteres sexuels primaires et secondaires male. C R Acad Sci Ser III Sci Vie 239:780–782Google Scholar
  5. Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Monogr Popul Biol 18:1–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespi BJ (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim Behav 38:980–1000Google Scholar
  7. Dunn AM, Adams J, Smith JE (1990) Intersexes in a shrimp: a possible disadvantage of environmental sex determination. Evolution 44:1875–1878Google Scholar
  8. Dunn AM, Adams J, Smith JE (1993) Is intersexuality a cost of environmental sex determination in Gammarus duebeni? J Zool (Lond) 231:383–389Google Scholar
  9. Ford AT, Fernandes TF, Rider SA, Read PA, Robinson CD, Davies IM (2003a) Reproduction in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus: a comparison between normal and intersex specimens. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 83:937–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford AT, Fernandes TF, Rider SA, Read PA, Robinson CD, Davies IM (2003b) Measuring sublethal impacts of pollution on reproductive output of marine Crustacea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 265:303–309Google Scholar
  11. Ford AT, Fernandes TF, Rider SA, Read PA, Robinson CD, Davies IM (2004) Endocrine disruption in a marine amphipod? Field observations of intersexuality and de-masculinisation. Mar Environ Res (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Fowler RJ, Leonard BV (1999) The structure and function of the androgenic gland in Cherax destructor (Decapoda: Parastacidae). Aquaculture 171:1487–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hashimoto S, Bessho H, Hara A, Nakamura M, Iguchi T, Fujita K (2000) Elevated serum vitellogenin levels and gonadal abnormalities in wild flounder (Pleuronectes yokohamae) from Tokyo Bay, Japan. Mar Environ Res 49:37–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (1997) Size and pairing success in Gammarus duebeni: can females be too big? Anim Behav 54:1301–1308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hume KD, Elwood RW, Dick JTA, Connaghan KM (2002) Size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): a test of the timing hypothesis. Anim Behav 64:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IEH (Institute for Environment and Health) (1999) IEH assessment on the ecological significance of endocrine disruption: effects on reproduction function and consequences for natural populations (assessment A4). MRC Institute for Environment and Health, Leicester, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Ladewig V, Jungmann D, Koehler A, Schirling M, Triebskorn R, Nagel R (2002) Intersexuality in Gammarus fossarum Koch, 1835 (Amphipoda). Crustaceana 75:1289–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lebederf GA (1939) A study of intersexuality in Drosophila virilis. Genetics 24:553–586Google Scholar
  19. Lincoln JL (1979) British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. British Natural History Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore CG, Stevenson JM (1991) The occurrence of intersexuality in harpacticoid copepods and its relationship with pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 22:72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nolan M, Jobling S, Brighty G, Sumpter JP, Tyler CRA (2001) A histological description of intersexuality in the roach. J Fish Biol 58:160–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plaistow J, Bollache L, Cézilly F (2003) Energetically costly precopulatory mate guarding in the amphipod Gammarus pulex: causes and consequences. Anim Behav 65:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity. The comparative method and adaptations for mating. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Rigaud T, Juchault P (1998) Sterile intersexuality in an isopod induced by the interaction between a bacterium (Wolbachia) and the environment. Can J Zool 76:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rudolph E, Verdi A, Tapia J (2001) Intersexuality in the burrowing crayfish, Parastacus varicosus Faxon, 1898 (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Crustaceana 74:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sagi A, Khalaila I, Barki A, Hulata G, Karplus I (1996) Intersex red claw crayfish, Cherax quadricarinatus (von Martens): functional males with pre-vitellogenic ovaries. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 190:16–23Google Scholar
  27. Sheader M, Chia FS (1970) Development, fecundity and brooding behaviour of the amphipod, Marinogammarusobtusatus. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 50:1079–1099Google Scholar
  28. Sexton EW (1924) The moulting and growth-stages of Gammarus, with descriptions of the normals and intersexes of G. cheureuxi. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 13:340–401Google Scholar
  29. Takahashi T, Araki A, Nomura Y, Koga M, Arizono K (2000) The occurrence of dual-gender imposex in Japanese freshwater crab. J Health Sci 46:376–379Google Scholar
  30. Taketoni Y, Nishikawa K (1996) Sex reversal by implantation of enthanol-treated androgenic glands of female isopods, Armadillidium vulgare (Malacostraca, Crustacea). Gen Comp Endocrinol 111:367–375Google Scholar
  31. Volz CV, Kawaguchi T, Chandler GT (2002) Purification and characterisation of the common yolk protein, vitellin, from the estuarine amphipopd Leptocheirus plumulosus. Prep Biochem Biotechnol 32:103–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Yaldwyn JC (1966) Protandrous hermaphroditism in decapod prawns of the families Hippolytidae and Campylonotidae. Nature 209:1366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. T. Ford
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. F. Fernandes
    • 1
  • P. A. Read
    • 1
  • C. D. Robinson
    • 2
  • I. M. Davies
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesNapier UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Environmental Impacts GroupFisheries Research Services Marine LaboratoryAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations