Sex differences in compensatory and catch-up growth in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki

Livingston, Julianne D.; Kahn, Andrew T.; Jennions, Michael D.

doi:10.1007/s10682-014-9691-1

Cited by 21 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, and unexpectedly, males on the control diet had relatively shorter gonopodia than those on the restricted diet, when they were of small or average body size. Our results, combined with those from our previous studies [56, 57], suggest that a poor diet early in life not only has the immediate cost of delayed maturation, but might impose additional costs if lower sperm production, slower swimming sperm, and deviations from the normal gonopodium-body size allometry reduce male fertilisation success under sperm competition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Against expectations (see [56]), males on the restricted diet had a significantly longer gonopodium than those on the control diet if they were of average or smaller body size, but a shorter gonopodium if they were of above average size (diet × size: P < 0.001; Table 3; Fig. 1).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 50%

“…In two earlier studies we showed that males with limited food intake as juveniles reach a similar size to males on a normal diet due to delayed maturation [55, 56]. Additionally, we showed that males with a poor start in life are less attractive to females than those reared on a regular diet [57].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Like many species [5, 24], juvenile mosquitofish that experience food restrictions early in life extend their development time to attain a similar body size to individuals on a regular diet (see [55, 56]). But do additional costs arise despite this equivalence in adult body size?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…standard laboratory feeding regime) whereas fish on the restricted diet were fed 3 mg of wet mass Artemia nauplii once every other day. We have previously shown that this restricted diet leads to minimal growth without elevating juvenile mortality [56]. Broods were split evenly between the control and restricted diet treatments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Are sexually selected traits affected by a poor environment early in life?

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChallenging conditions experienced early in life, such as a restricted diet, can detrimentally affect key life-history traits. Individuals can reduce these costs by delaying their sexual maturation, albeit at the price of the later onset of breeding, to eventually reach the same adult size as individuals that grow up in a benevolent environment. Delayed maturation can, however, still lead to other detrimental morphological and physiological changes that become apparent later in adulthood (e.g. shorter lifespan, faster senescence). In general, research focuses on the naturally selected costs of a poor early diet. In mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), males with limited food intake early in life delay maturation to reach a similar adult body size to their well-fed counterparts (‘catch-up growth’). Here we tested whether a poor early diet is costly due to the reduced expression of sexually selected male characters, namely genital size and ejaculate traits.ResultsWe found that a male’s diet early in life significantly influenced his sperm reserves and sperm replenishment rate. Shortly after maturation males with a restricted early diet had significantly lower sperm reserves and slower replenishment rates than control diet males, but this dietary difference was no longer detectable in older males.ConclusionsAlthough delaying maturation to reach the same body size as well fed juveniles can ameliorate some costs of a poor start in life, our findings suggest that costs might still arise because of sexual selection against these males. It should be noted, however, that the observed effects are modest (Hedges’ g = 0.20–0.36), and the assumption that lower sperm production translates into a decline in fitness under sperm competition remains unconfirmed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-016-0838-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 50%