AbstractPhenotypic plasticity in reproductive traits is of theoretical and applied interest as one avenue by which organisms might maintain an optimal annual reproductive routine in the face of cyclic and/or directional change in environmental conditions. We used long‐term, individual‐based data from parapatric populations of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) to evaluate plasticity in breeding date, gestation duration, birth date, birth mass, and fetal growth rate in response to inter‐annual (cyclic) variation in indices of maternal energy income and expense. Traits in both species responded plastically to variation in maternal energy balance. However, despite nearly identical climate and similar vegetative habitat, plasticity was expressed in fundamentally different ways in the study species. Variation in bighorn birth date was primarily due to plasticity in breeding date, whereas variation in pronghorn birth date was primarily due to variation in gestation duration. Across traits, bighorn plastic responses were more consistent with explanations that invoked periodic energy surplus as the basis for plasticity, whereas pronghorn plastic responses were more consistent with explanations that invoked periodic energy deficiency. Later birth date was associated with increased fetal growth rate in bighorn but decreased fetal growth rate in pronghorn. Finally, we detected strong directional selection for early birth among bighorn mothers but found no evidence of selection on pronghorn birth date. Collectively, our results indicate markedly different maternal tactics for timing birth. Bighorn mothers appeared to use stored energy to subsidize the cost of birth prior to the local environmental optimum in an energy‐mediated competition with other females to minimize birth order rank. Pronghorn mothers, committed to high levels of energy allocation to offspring and subject therefore to frequent energy deficiency, timed birth conservatively to more closely match peak reproductive expenditure with peak energy income at the local environmental optimum.