The Effect of Brief or Prolonged Bouts of Winning or Losing Male-Male Contests on Plasticity in Sexually Selected Traits

Fight outcomes often affect male fitness by determining their access to mates. Thus, “winner-loser” effects, where winners often win their next contest while losers tend to lose, can influence how males allocate resources toward pre- and postcopulatory traits. We experimentally manipulated the winning/losing experiences of pairs of size-matched male Gambusia holbrooki for 1 day, 1 week, or 3 weeks to test whether prior winning/losing experiences differentially affect the plasticity of male investment into either mating effort (precopulatory) or ejaculates (postcopulatory). When winner/loser pairs directly competed for a female, winners had better precopulatory outcomes than losers for three of the four traits we measured: mating attempts, successful attempts, and time spent with the female (but not aggression). However, winners and losers did not differ in either total sperm counts or sperm velocity. Interestingly, absolute male size, an important predictor of fighting success, mediated winner-loser effects on how long males then spent near a female. Compared with losers, smaller winners spent more time with the female than did larger winners, suggesting that how males respond to prior social experiences is size dependent. We discuss the general importance of controlling for inherent male condition when comparing male investment into condition-dependent traits.

[1]  O. Leimar,et al.  Reproductive skew, fighting costs and winner–loser effects in social dominance evolution , 2022, The Journal of animal ecology.

[2]  L. Simmons,et al.  Male alternative reproductive tactics and sperm competition: a meta‐analysis , 2022, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[3]  S. M. Lane,et al.  Skilful mating? Insights from animal contest research , 2021, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  B. Taborsky,et al.  The interplay between winner–loser effects and social rank in cooperatively breeding vertebrates , 2021, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  M. Jennions,et al.  Quantifying the costs of pre‐ and postcopulatory traits for males: Evidence that costs of ejaculation are minor relative to mating effort , 2021, Evolution letters.

[6]  S. Lüpold,et al.  Condition‐dependent interaction between mating success and competitive fertilization success in Drosophila melanogaster * , 2021, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[7]  J. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Male–male behavioral interactions drive social-dominance-mediated differences in ejaculate traits , 2020, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

[8]  M. Jennions,et al.  An experimental test to separate the effects of male age and mating history on female mate choice , 2020 .

[9]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  How sperm competition shapes the evolution of testes and sperm: a meta-analysis , 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

[10]  Matthew C. Kustra,et al.  Sperm and alternative reproductive tactics: a review of existing theory and empirical data , 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

[11]  J. Gaillard,et al.  The hidden ageing costs of sperm competition. , 2020, Ecology letters.

[12]  T. Chapman,et al.  Plastic male mating behavior evolves in response to the competitive environment * , 2020, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  O. Leimar The evolution of social dominance through reinforcement learning , 2020, bioRxiv.

[14]  M. Jennions,et al.  Shifts in Reproductive Investment in Response to Competitors Lower Male Reproductive Success , 2020, The American Naturalist.

[15]  E. Brodie,et al.  Contest interactions and outcomes: relative body size and aggression independently predict contest status , 2019, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  N. Dingemanse,et al.  Experimental evidence that winning or losing a fight does not affect sperm quality in a field cricket , 2019, Ethology.

[17]  M. Briffa,et al.  Further mismeasures of animal contests: a new framework for assessment strategies , 2019, Behavioral Ecology.

[18]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  Effects of nutrient limitation on sperm and seminal fluid: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2019, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[19]  M. Jennions,et al.  Variation in the condition-dependence of individual sexual traits in male eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki , 2019, Behavioral Ecology.

[20]  R. Dukas,et al.  Winners have higher pre-copulatory mating success but losers have better post-copulatory outcomes , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[21]  M. Jennions,et al.  Sexual selection, phenotypic plasticity and female reproductive output , 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

[22]  M. Jennions,et al.  The effects of male age, sperm age and mating history on ejaculate senescence , 2019, Functional Ecology.

[23]  T. Chapman,et al.  The role of complex cues in social and reproductive plasticity , 2018, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[24]  M. Jennions,et al.  Does the winner–loser effect determine male mating success? , 2018, Biology Letters.

[25]  Casper W. Berg,et al.  glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling , 2017, R J..

[26]  L. Simmons,et al.  Evolutionary Trade-Off between Secondary Sexual Traits and Ejaculates. , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  Martin A. Stoffel,et al.  rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed‐effects models , 2017 .

[28]  Mark R. Wilson,et al.  Telomere dynamics in a lizard with morph‐specific reproductive investment and self‐maintenance , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[29]  C. Gasparini,et al.  Impaired sperm quality, delayed mating but no costs for offspring fitness in crickets winning a fight , 2016, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[30]  M. Whiting,et al.  Influence of prior contest experience and level of escalation on contest outcome , 2016, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[31]  M. Jennions,et al.  Are sexually selected traits affected by a poor environment early in life? , 2016, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[32]  M. Jennions,et al.  Predictors of male insemination success in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) , 2015, Ecology and evolution.

[33]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Early-late life trade-offs and the evolution of ageing in the wild , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  R. E. O’Dea,et al.  Male body size and condition affects sperm number and production rates in mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki , 2014, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[35]  R. E. O’Dea,et al.  The effects of familiarity and mating experience on mate choice in mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki , 2014 .

[36]  L. Simmons,et al.  Contrasting responses of pre- and post-copulatory traits to variation in mating competition , 2014 .

[37]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  Female monopolization mediates the relationship between pre- and postcopulatory sexual traits , 2014, Nature Communications.

[38]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[39]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Pattern of inbreeding depression, condition dependence, and additive genetic variance in Trinidadian guppy ejaculate traits , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[40]  Menna E. Jones,et al.  Sperm competition drives the evolution of suicidal reproduction in mammals , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  E. Snell-Rood,et al.  An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[42]  H. Kokko,et al.  Adaptive sex allocation in anticipation of changes in offspring mating opportunities , 2013, Nature Communications.

[43]  I. Booksmythe,et al.  Competitor size, male mating success and mate choice in eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[44]  Y. Hsu,et al.  Winner and loser effects are modulated by hormonal states , 2013, Frontiers in Zoology.

[45]  Barbara Taborsky,et al.  Social competence: an evolutionary approach. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[46]  M. Jennions,et al.  Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta‐analyses of strategic ejaculation , 2011, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[47]  T. Chapman,et al.  Quick-change artists: male plastic behavioural responses to rivals. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[48]  W. Cade,et al.  Aggressiveness and Size: A Model and Two Tests , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[49]  A. Mason,et al.  The relative importance of RHP and resource quality in contests with ownership asymmetries , 2011 .

[50]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Sperm number and velocity affect sperm competition success in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[51]  G. Parker,et al.  Sperm competition and ejaculate economics , 2010, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[52]  T. Miyatake,et al.  Ejaculatory strategies associated with experience of losing , 2010, Biology Letters.

[53]  C. Wiklund,et al.  Contest outcome in a territorial butterfly: the role of motivation , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[54]  A. Mason,et al.  Examination of prior contest experience and the retention of winner and loser effects. , 2010, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

[55]  T. Miura,et al.  Spermatogenesis in fish. , 2010, General and comparative endocrinology.

[56]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Effect of male age on sperm traits and sperm competition success in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[57]  Gareth Arnott,et al.  Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[58]  P. J. Moore,et al.  Sperm competition within a dominance hierarchy: investment in social status vs. investment in ejaculates , 2008, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[59]  Y. Hsu,et al.  Reciprocity between endocrine state and contest behavior in the killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus , 2008, Hormones and Behavior.

[60]  Rui F. Oliveira,et al.  The evolution of alternative reproductive tactics: concepts and questions , 2008 .

[61]  T. Birkhead,et al.  Changes in Sperm Quality and Numbers in Response to Experimental Manipulation of Male Social Status and Female Attractiveness , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[62]  L. L. Wolf,et al.  Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes , 2005, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[63]  M. Amorim,et al.  The outcome of male–male encounters affects subsequent sound production during courtship in the cichlid fish Oreochromis mossambicus , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[64]  D. Kemp,et al.  Residency effects in animal contests , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[65]  Y. Koya,et al.  Annual reproductive cycle and rate of the spermatogenic process in male mosquitofish Gambusia affinis , 2004, Ichthyological Research.

[66]  L. L. Wolf,et al.  The winner and loser effect: what fighting behaviours are influenced? , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[67]  Jones,et al.  Microsatellite assessment of multiple paternity in natural populations of a live‐bearing fish, Gambusia holbrooki , 1999 .

[68]  D. Wilson,et al.  Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[69]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Sexual selection for small size in male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[70]  L. Rowe,et al.  The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[71]  P. Backwell,et al.  Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes , 1996 .

[72]  G. Parker,et al.  Effects of alternative male mating strategies on characteristics of sperm production in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): theoretical and empirical investigations , 1995 .

[73]  D. Shapiro,et al.  Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  A. Bisazza,et al.  Sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Pisces Poeciliidae) , 1995 .

[75]  A. J. Noordwijk,et al.  Acquisition and Allocation of Resources: Genetic (CO) Variances, Selection, and Life Histories , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[76]  M. McPeek Mechanisms of sexual selection operating on body size in the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) , 1992 .

[77]  A. J. Noordwijk,et al.  Acquisition and Allocation of Resources: Their Influence on Variation in Life History Tactics , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[78]  G. Parker,et al.  SPERM COMPETITION AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES IN THE INSECTS , 1970 .

[79]  D. K. Caldwell,et al.  Monarchistic dominance in small groups of captive male mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis patruelis , 1962 .

[80]  P. Pye-Smith The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , 1871, Nature.

[81]  R. Meldola Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.