Body mass change over winter is consistently sex-specific across roe deer populations

In polygynous vertebrates, males must allocate energy to growing the secondary sexual characteristics, such as ornaments or weapons, that they require to attract and defend potential mates, impacting body condition and potentially entailing fitness costs. We investigated sex differences in over winter body mass change across five intensively monitored populations of roe deer with markedly contrasting environmental conditions. At winter onset, males weighed, on average, 8.5% (from 4.5% in the most northerly population to 12.3% in the most southerly one) more than females. However, across all populations, males fared worse over the winter than females, losing more (Sweden) or gaining less (France) mass, so that sexual mass dimorphism was virtually absent prior to the onset of spring. Our findings reveal that the direction of over-winter change in mass of roe deer depends on winter severity, but that males are consistently more sensitive to this environmental constraint than females. As a result of this sex-specific change in body mass, sexual mass dimorphism is lowest at the onset of the territorial season. We suggest that allocation to antler growth and territory establishment drives this pattern, providing a likely explanation to account for the lower rates of male adult survival that are consistently reported in this weakly dimorphic species.

[1]  T. Stephenson,et al.  Survival of the fattest: how body fat and migration influence survival in highly seasonal environments , 2022, Functional Ecology.

[2]  J. Speakman,et al.  Fat storage influences fasting endurance more than body size in an ungulate , 2021, Functional Ecology.

[3]  P. Stephens,et al.  Capital-Income Breeding in Male Ungulates: Causes and Consequences of Strategy Differences Among Species , 2020, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

[4]  J. Gaillard,et al.  The influence of early‐life allocation to antlers on male performance during adulthood: Evidence from contrasted populations of a large herbivore , 2018, The Journal of animal ecology.

[5]  M. Festa‐Bianchet,et al.  Drivers and demographic consequences of seasonal mass changes in an alpine ungulate. , 2018, Ecology.

[6]  C. Buck,et al.  Seasonal reproductive tactics: annual timing and the capital-to-income breeder continuum , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[8]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Reproductive constraints, not environmental conditions, shape the ontogeny of sex‐specific mass–size allometry in roe deer , 2011 .

[9]  T. Arnold Uninformative Parameters and Model Selection Using Akaike's Information Criterion , 2010 .

[10]  J. Joachim,et al.  Landscape fragmentation influences winter body mass of roe deer , 2009 .

[11]  A. Houston,et al.  Capital breeding and income breeding: their meaning, measurement, and worth. , 2009, Ecology.

[12]  Erlend B. Nilsen,et al.  A slow life in hell or a fast life in heaven: demographic analyses of contrasting roe deer populations. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[13]  M. Goulard,et al.  Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male's territory, but not by its habitat quality. , 2009, Journal of Animal Ecology.

[14]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Age‐specific feeding cessation in male red deer during rut , 2008 .

[15]  O. Liberg,et al.  Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate , 2008 .

[16]  A. Houston,et al.  Capital or income breeding? A theoretical model of female reproductive strategies , 2007 .

[17]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Climate‐dependent allocation of resources to secondary sexual traits in red deer , 2005 .

[18]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Density-dependent responses of fawn cohort body mass in two contrasting roe deer populations , 2005, Oecologia.

[19]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Age– and density–dependent reproductive effort in male red deer , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  J. Gaillard,et al.  The influence of density on post‐weaning growth in roe deer Capreolus capreolus fawns , 2002 .

[21]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Phenotypic quality and senescence affect different components of reproductive output in roe deer , 2001 .

[22]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Factors affecting maternal care in an income breeder, the European roe deer , 2000 .

[23]  K. I. Jönsson,et al.  Capital and income breeding as alternative tactics of resource use in reproduction , 1997 .

[24]  A. Hewison,et al.  Annual variation in body composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in moderate environmental conditions , 1996 .

[25]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Roe deer survival patterns: a comparative analysis of contrasting populations , 1993 .

[26]  B. L. Boeuf,et al.  Sexual Selection's Effects on Male Life History and the Pattern of Male Mortality , 1993 .

[27]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Seasonality, Fasting Endurance, and Body Size in Mammals , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[28]  J. Hogg Mating in bighorn sheep: multiple creative male strategies. , 1984, Science.

[29]  R. Aitken Delayed implantation in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). , 1974, Journal of reproduction and fertility.