Reproductive constraints, not environmental conditions, shape the ontogeny of sex‐specific mass–size allometry in roe deer

In polygynous mammals, sex-specific patterns of body growth are linked to divergent selection pressures on male and female body size, resulting in sexual dimorphism (SD). For males, reproductive success is generally linked to body size, hence, males should prioritise early growth. For females, reproductive success is linked to resource availability, so they may adopt a more conservative growth tactic. Using longitudinal monitoring of known-age animals in two contrasting populations and an allometric approach to disentangle the relative contribution of structural size and physiological condition to SD, we addressed these issues in the weakly polygynous roe deer. Despite very different environmental conditions, we found remarkably similar patterns in the two populations in the mass–size allometric relationship at each life history stage, suggesting that relative allocation to structural size and physiological condition is highly constrained. SD in structural size (indexed by hind foot length) involved sex-specific growth trajectories governed by a single mass–size allometric relationship during the juvenile stage, such that males were both bigger and heavier than females. In contrast, SD in physiological condition (indexed by the allometric relationship between body mass and hind foot length, expressed as body mass for a given body size) developed markedly during the sub-adult stage in relation to sex differences in the timing of first reproduction. Among adults, males were heavier for a given size than females, suggesting that, relative to females, males express a capital breeder tactic, accumulating fat reserves to offset reproductive costs. By the senescent stage, SD in physiological condition had disappeared, with both sexes governed by a single allometric relationship, suggesting more rapid senescence in males than females. Individuals born into poor cohorts were generally lighter for a given size, indicating growth priority for skeletal size over physiological condition in both sexes. However, sex differences in cohort effects among sub-adults resulted in lower size-specific SD in poor cohorts, indicating that body condition of sub-adult females is buffered against environmental harshness. We conclude that sex-differences in reproductive tactics impose constraints on the ontogeny of SD in roe deer, leading to sex-specific trajectories in structural size and physiological condition.

[1]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Assessing the intensity of sexual selection on male body mass and antler length in roe deer Capreolus capreolus: is bigger better in a weakly dimorphic species? , 2010 .

[2]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Sex-specific Growth in Alpine Chamois , 2009 .

[3]  M. Heistermann,et al.  Seasonal and social influences on fecal androgen and glucocorticoid excretion in wild male long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) , 2009, Physiology & Behavior.

[4]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Age-Specific Variation in Male Breeding Success of a Territorial Ungulate Species, the European Roe Deer , 2009 .

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

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

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

[9]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Antler Size Provides an Honest Signal of Male Phenotypic Quality in Roe Deer , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[10]  J. Gaillard,et al.  How does environmental variation influence body mass, body size, and body condition? Roe deer as a case study , 2006 .

[11]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Using a proxy of plant productivity (NDVI) to find key periods for animal performance: the case of roe deer , 2006 .

[12]  J. Isaac.  Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals , 2005 .

[13]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Lasting effects of conditions at birth on moose body mass , 2004 .

[14]  Wendy C. H. Green,et al.  Trade-offs between growth and reproduction in female bison , 1991, Oecologia.

[15]  T. Skogland.  The effects of density dependent resource limitation on size of wild reindeer , 1983, Oecologia.

[16]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Effects of hurricane lothar on the population dynamics of european roe deer , 2003 .

[17]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Cohort effects and deer population dynamics , 2003 .

[18]  K. Wilson,et al.  Parasites as a Viability Cost of Sexual Selection in Natural Populations of Mammals , 2002, Science.

[19]  A. Badyaev,et al.  Growing apart: an ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism , 2002 .

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

[21]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  M. Festa‐Bianchet,et al.  Sexual size dimorphism in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of population density , 2001 .

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

[24]  Jeff P. Reeve,et al.  Predicting the evolution of sexual size dimorphism , 2001 .

[25]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Temporal Variation in Fitness Components and Population Dynamics of Large Herbivores , 2000 .

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

[27]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  F. Messier,et al.  The influences of density on growth and reproduction in moose Alces alces , 2000, Wildlife Biology.

[29]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Density‐Dependent Variation in Lifetime Breeding Success and Natural and Sexual Selection in Soay Rams , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[30]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Cohort Affects Growth of Males but Not Females in Alpine Ibex (Capra ibex ibex) , 1999 .

[31]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Environmental variation shapes sexual dimorphism in red deer. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  D. Fairbairn.  Allometry for Sexual Size Dimorphism: Pattern and Process in the Coevolution of Body Size in Males and Females , 1997 .

[33]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Early survival in roe deer: causes and consequences of cohort variation in two contrasted populations , 1997, Oecologia.

[34]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Global climate change and phenotypic variation among red deer cohorts , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[36]  R. Andersen,et al.  Variation in maternal investment in a small cervid; the effects of cohort, sex, litter size and time of birth in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) fawns , 1997, Oecologia.

[37]  J. W. Thomas,et al.  Nutrition-growth relations of elk calves during late summer and fall , 1996 .

[38]  A. Hewison.  Variation in the fecundity of roe deer in Britain: effects of age and body weight , 1996 .

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

[40]  W. J. King,et al.  The development of sexual dimorphism: seasonal and lifetime mass changes in bighorn sheep , 1996 .

[41]  M. Festa‐Bianchet,et al.  Life History Consequences of Variation in Age of Primiparity in Bighorn Ewes , 1995 .

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

[43]  P. Leberg,et al.  Influence of Density on Growth of White-Tailed Deer , 1993 .

[44]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  Effects of age and body weight on the proportion of females breeding in a population of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) , 1992 .

[45]  F S Dobson,et al.  Body Mass, Structural Size, and Life-History Patterns of the Columbian Ground Squirrel , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[46]  J. Jullien,et al.  Intérêt de l'étude de la période juvénile pour le suivi de l'évolution d'une population de chevreuils (Capreolus capreolus) , 1988 .

[47]  P. Jarman.  MATING SYSTEM AND SEXCUL DIMORPHISM IN LARGE TERRESTRIAL, MAMMALIAN HERBIVORES , 1983 .

[48]  P. Harvey,et al.  Antlers, body size and breeding group size in the Cervidae , 1980, Nature.

[49]  L. Eberhardt,et al.  Population Dynamics and Marine Mammal Management Policies , 1977 .

[50]  D. Klein.  Range-Related Differences in Growth of Deer Reflected in Skeletal Ratios , 1964 .