To be or not to be? Mating success and survival trade-offs when switching between alternative reproductive tactics.

Abstract

Hormones underlie the decision of assuming a territorial or a nonterritorial role, with territorial individuals usually having higher hormonal levels than nonterritorial individuals. As a territorial status is linked to higher mating opportunities, it is unclear why animals do not keep high hormonal levels and one explanation is that this would imply survival costs. We have tested this using males of the territorial damselfly Argia emma in the field. We increased juvenile hormone (JH) levels using methoprene in both territorial and nonterritorial males and predicted that: (i) males will keep (the case of territorial males) or become (the case of nonterritorial males) territorial after hormonal increase, and (ii) there will be an increase in mating success for nonterritorial males only and an impaired survival for both male tactics. Hormonally treated males remained or became territorial but had their survival impaired compared with control groups. Also, hormonally treated, ex-nonterritorial males increased their mating success compared with the other control, nonterritorial males. The reduced survival can be explained proximally by the energy devoted either to the enhanced aggression showed during territory defence or immune function (as detected previously in damselflies). Although nonterritorial males may increase their mating success by switching to a territorial tactic, they are possibly unable to do it naturally as JH is dietary dependent and usually nonterritorial animals are in poorer condition than territorial animals.