Male coloration affects female gestation period and timing of fertilization in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata).

The trade-up hypothesis is a female behavioral strategy related to mating with multiple males. In this hypothesis, females can produce high-quality offspring while avoiding the risk of losing reproductive opportunities by non-selective mating with males at first mating and then re-mating with more attractive males. As an internal mechanism to realize this behavioral strategy, we predicted that females would immediately fertilize their eggs when they mated with attractive males, whereas females would delay fertilization when they mated with unattractive males to trade-up sires of offspring. The guppy (Poecilia reticulata) is an ovoviviparous fish with internal fertilization, and females show a clear mate preference based on the area of orange coloration on the bodies of males. In addition, it is known that females show a re-mating strategy consistent with the trade-up hypothesis. We tested whether the attractiveness of mated males affected the gestation period and the timing of fertilization. Females were paired with either colorful males or drab males, and the gestation periods (the number of days from mating to parturition) were compared. In addition, we dissected the abdomens of the females at intervals of several days after mating and observed whether the eggs were fertilized. The gestation period in females that were paired with attractive colorful males was significantly shorter than that in females that were paired with drab males. We found that females that mated with colorful males also had their eggs fertilized earlier than those that mated with drab males. Our findings show that differences in the timing of fertilization according to attractiveness of the mate increase the opportunity for cryptic female choice and trading up.

Introduction

Males of a species are not all equally successful in mating with females, and all males that succeed in mating do not equally sire offspring when a female mates with multiple males. Male-male competition and female mate choice, which compose sexual selection, have the potential to continue during post-copulation periods (following intromission or spawning) in the form of sperm competition and cryptic female choice [1, 2]. Sperm competition is the post-copulatory equivalent of male-male competition and occurs when the ejaculates of two or more males compete for fertilization of a given set of ova [3]. Cryptic female choice corresponds to the post-copulatory female mate choice and occurs when females bias sperm use in favor of particular males [4, 5]. Therefore, males that succeed in sperm competition or are favored in cryptic female choice (or both) are able to sire more offspring among the multiple males that mated with a female. Eberhard [5] described a list of various female-controlled processes and activities during cryptic female choice, which modify the chance that a given copulation will result in offspring. To bias a male to sire offspring among multiple mated males, females can control not only the transport, storage, and use of sperm from the mated males, but also subsequently mate with other males [5].

The trade-up hypothesis is a female behavioral strategy involving multiple mating. When females choose mates at pre-copulation, they must take decisions to mate with a current male or seek a subsequent male. If females avoid mating with the current male to seek a more attractive male, it is possible that they might not find subsequent males and might miss the opportunity for reproduction. On the contrary, if females mate with the current male, they might miss the opportunity to find and mate with subsequent males of higher quality. The trade-up hypothesis describes a behavioral strategy in which females can maximize the genetic quality of their offspring when they encounter multiple males sequentially [6, 7]. The hypothesis suggests that in non-resource-based mating systems, with some degree of last-male sperm precedence, a female should mate with the first male that she encounters to ensure fertilization of eggs, but subsequently mate preferentially with males of higher genetic quality. Sequential mate choice in female newts Triturus vulgaris [8] and crickets Gryllus bimaculatus [9] have supported this hypothesis. Thus, females are relatively indiscriminate at the first mating, but they become increasingly choosy with each successive mating opportunity.

The guppy (Poecilia reticulata) is an ovoviviparous fish with internal fertilization and a non-resource-based promiscuous mating system [10, 11]. Female guppies show a clear mate preference in the pre-copulation phase: females in many populations prefer males with large orange areas on their bodies [12-14]. Females mate with multiple males and give birth to a brood with multiple paternity [15, 16]. Pitcher et al. [17] provided evidence that female guppies have a mating strategy that follows the trade-up hypothesis. They presented virgin females sequentially with two males of varying attractiveness, based on the amount of orange coloration on their bodies. They showed that female responsiveness to males presented second (second males) increased when the attractiveness of second males were greater than those of males presented first (first males), compared to when the attractiveness of second males were less than the first males or were the same as the first males. In addition, there was an overall tendency for a last-male advantage in paternity, and this advantage was more exaggerated when the second male was more ornamented than the first. Thus, female guppies may be able to maximize the genetic quality of their offspring through such a trade up of mated males during successive matings. While Pitcher et al. [17] demonstrated the trade-up hypothesis in the guppy from behavioral and paternity data, the cryptic processes occurring in the female internally remain unknown.

The cycle of egg production in guppies is non-superfetatious, that is, females give birth to a brood before the next ova are fertilized, and they carry a single brood at one time [11, 18]. During development, embryos are nourished by the yolk that females deposit in the eggs prior to fertilization [10]. Fertilization in Poeciliids occurs over a period of 1–5 d, and after 1–8 d post-parturition [18]. The reproductive cycle of guppies typically lasts approximately 25–30 d, although considerable variation has been observed [11]. For example, the gestation period (days from mating to parturition) of virgin females can vary anywhere from 20 to 65 d [19, 20]. The gestation period is composed of two phases: the interval between insemination and fertilization (which may also include a yolk-loading phase) and the ensuing interval between fertilization and parturition [20]. Evans and Magurran [19] showed that the gestation period in female guppies paired with multiple males was shorter than those mated with a single male, while females that paired with a single male were likely to delay the process of fertilization for a more suitable mating. In addition, the gestation period has been shown to be shorter for female guppies that mated with colorful males than for those that mated with drab males [21]. Considering the above findings, we predict that females that mate with more ornamented males will immediately fertilize their ova, whereas females that mate with less ornamented males will delay fertilization. In this study, we directly tested whether the sexual attractiveness of mated males affects the timing of fertilization in female guppies. We observed whether the ova were fertilized by opening their abdomens between 2 and 22 d after pairing with colorful or drab males. Additionally, we measured the gestation period (duration from mating to parturition) between females that mated with colorful males and those that mated with drab males, and compared whether the difference in the timing of fertilization according to male coloration reflected the difference in the gestation period.

Materials and methods

Study subject

The fish used in this study were laboratory-reared descendants of feral guppies from the Hiji River (26° 43 N, 128° 11 E), Okinawa Island, southern Japan. Females in this population prefer males with larger orange areas on the body than those with smaller ones [14, 22]. Fish were reared in a laboratory at Gunma University. Water temperature was maintained at 27 ± 2°C. Illumination was provided by fluorescent tubes, and the light/dark regime was set at 12/12 h. All fish were fed once daily with newly hatched brine shrimp and commercial flake food (Tetramin; Tetra Werke, Melle, Germany).

Males were reared in 40 L mixed-sex aquaria (45 × 30 × 30 cm) containing approximately 50 males and 50 females. To eliminate the influence of the previous mating, we used virgin females that were reared in 12 L single-sex aquaria (37 × 22 × 25 cm) from 30 to 60 d after birth.

Ethics statement

Female laparotomy treatments were approved by the Animal Care and Experimentation Committee of Gunma University, Japan (permit numbers: 20–040). All experiments were conducted according to the guidelines of the committee.

Test fish

We used mature individuals (> 5 months old) as the test fish. Before the start of the experiment, test fish were anesthetized with 2-phenoxyethanol solution, and body size (i.e., total length from snout to the tip of the caudal fin and standard length from snout to root of the caudal fin) was recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm by using a vernier caliper.

To quantify body coloration, males were photographed on the left and right sides following body size measurements. For photography, a digital camera (TG-3; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was placed at a distance of 4 cm above the male in a Petri dish containing 2-phenoxyethanol solution for anesthetization. Two lights (krypton bulb 25 W, daylight color, Sunlamp KR R45, Asahi, Tokyo, Japan) illuminated both sides of the petri dish from a position 20-cm away from the fish. The male body was fully immersed in the anesthetic solution; after a complete lack of movement, the male body was gently shaken in the solution to open the caudal fin. We took some photographs and selected clearer photographs and those in which the caudal fin was fully opened for analysis. The selected images were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop Elements 14 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA). The relative area of the orange spots was calculated as the ratio of the total area of orange spots to the total area of the body and caudal fin. We averaged the relative area of the orange spots from the right and left sides and considered it as the orange spot area of the male.

For pairing, a tetrad was created with two virgin females and two males. The two females in a tetrad had similar body sizes (< 2-mm difference in total length). The two males in a tetrad had similar body sizes (< 2-mm difference in total length), while the orange spot areas differed. We assigned individuals with a relatively larger orange spot area as colorful males and individuals with a relatively smaller orange spot area as drab males. Before pairing, the two females in a tetrad were placed in a small transparent tank (11 × 11 × 9 cm) that was subsequently placed in a male rearing aquarium (containing approximately 50 adult males) for 24 h, in order to enhance mate choosiness of the female by making visual contact with various males.

Pairing

The pairing tank was a transparent plastic aquarium (18 × 10 × 11 cm) and was divided into two compartments (9 × 10 × 11 cm) using a transparent divider. The tank was filled with water to a depth of 8 cm, and the bottom was covered with gravel. The water temperature and light conditions were the same as those mentioned previously. One tetrad was placed in the pairing tank, with the two males in one compartment of the tank and two females in the other compartment during the acclimation period. After a 24 h acclimation period, one male and one female in each compartment were switched such that one compartment contained a colorful male and a female, and the other compartment contained a drab male and a female. Each male-female pair freely mated for 24 h, which was considered as the “mating period”.

After pairing, the test males were individually housed for use again as a different tetrad or removed to a stock aquarium. The females were individually reared after pairing in parturition tanks (10 × 15 × 9 cm) containing 1.2 L of water and gravel. The females were allocated to either parturition treatments or laparotomy treatments; two females in the same tetrad were allocated to the same treatment. As a shelter for the offspring, an artificial aquatic plant made of thin green polyethylene tape was placed in the tanks containing females in the parturition treatments. These tanks were observed daily and checked for newborn broods. When the females gave birth, we calculated the number of days from pairing to parturition.

Female laparotomies and discrimination of fertilization

The abdomens of females in the laparotomy treatment were opened between 2 and 22 d after pairing, and the ova or embryos were extracted. We set a maximum of 22 d after pairing because the shortest gestation period was 25 d in the above parturition treatment. The two females from the same tetrad were laparotomized on the same day. When the same pair of colorful and drab males were used for different tetrads, the females of different tetrads were laparotomized on different days after pairing. In addition, we also laparotomized nine virgin females as a control treatment.

After the females were anaesthetized in 0.7 mL/L 2-phenoxyethanol solution, they were euthanized by over-anesthetization using 2-phenoxyethanol. Using scissors and fine forceps, the ventral side of the abdomen was dissected from the cloaca to the anterior region. The ovaries were extracted under a dissecting microscope and placed in a Petri dish containing fresh water. The thin connective tissue of the ovary was carefully incised to isolate individual ova and embryos using fine tweezers. The ova and embryos were examined under a dissecting microscope to determine their developmental stages.

The ova and embryonic developmental stages were determined according to Haynes [23] and Martyn et al. [24]. When females held early yolked ovum (Fig 1A) or mature ova that were fully yolked (Fig 1B), we considered their ova to be unfertilized. When females had blastodisc embryos (Fig 1C), primitive streak embryos (Fig 1D), or embryos after these stages (Fig 1E), we considered their ova to be fertilized. If females had only small white immature ova (Fig 1F), we excluded them from the analyses as these ova were considered not ready for fertilization.

Fig 1

Unfertilized and fertilized ova.

a) early yolked ovum, b) mature ovum, c) blastodisc embryos, d) primitive streak embryo, e) developing embryo, and f) immature ova. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Statistical analyses

A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to compare gestation period between females paired with colorful males and those paired with drab males. We used the gestation period as a dependent variable, the male coloration (colorful/drab), brood size, and female standard length as fixed factors, and tetrad identity as a random factor. After the dependent variable was log-transformed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in post-transform; D = 0.130, df = 46, P = 0.050) to meet the model assumptions of normality, the data were fitted to a normal distribution with an identity link function.

To examine whether the coloration of the males paired with affected the timing of fertilization, we conducted GLMM using binomial data. Values of 0 and 1 were assigned to females that had unfertilized and fertilized ova, respectively, and the binary data were considered as a dependent variable. We used male coloration (colorful/drab) and the number of days from pairing as fixed factors. Tetrad and male identities were entered into the models as random factors, because some males were used in several different tetrads. The data were fitted to a binomial distribution using a logit link function. In addition, it was estimated that the inflection points of fertilization occurred in 50% of females that were paired with either colorful or drab males. We performed logistic regression analyses and calculated the inflection points from the regression equation as Y = 1/exp [−(α + β X)]. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS version 26.0.0.0 and R version 3.3.3.

Results

We created 60 pairs of 54 colorful males and 51 drab males. Seventy-nine tetrads were created from 60 male pairs and 158 females. The body size of colorful males was 16.4 ± 1.2 mm (standard length; mean ± standard deviation) and that of drab males was 16.4 ± 1.2 mm (paired t-test; n = 60 pairs, t = 0.312, p = 0.714). The body size of females that paired with colorful males was 21.8 ± 1.9 mm and the body size of females that paired with drab males was 21.8 ± 1.9 mm (paired t-test; n = 79 pairs, t = -0.078, p = 0.938). The orange area of colorful males was 10.9% ± 4.7%, the orange area of drab males was 2.9% ± 1.2%, and the difference in the orange area between colorful and drab male pairs was 7.9% ± 5.0% (paired t-test; n = 60 pairs, t = 12.241, p < 0.001). We assigned the parturition treatment to females in 24 tetrads and the laparotomy treatment to females in 55 tetrads. All relevant data are available in the manuscript and S1 File.

In the parturition treatment, one female that paired with a colorful male and another that paired with a drab male did not give birth to a brood even 120 days after pairing. These data were excluded from the analyses. The results of the GLMM showed that the body size of females and brood size did not have a significant effect; therefore, these variables were removed from the model. Finally, male coloration significantly affected gestation period (Table 1). The gestation period in females that were paired with colorful males (mean ± standard deviation: 31.1 ± 7.3 d) was significantly shorter than that in females paired with drab males (39.0 ± 9.8 d; Fig 2). Brood size was not affected by male coloration, although it was significantly affected by the body size of females (Table 1).

Table 1

Results of the generalized linear mixed model in parturition treatment.

	Estimate ± Standard error	t	P
Gestation period
Male type (colorful / drab)	0.21 ± 0.10	3.72	<0.001
Brood size
Male type (colorful / drab)	0.91 ± 1.23	0.75	0.454
Female size	1.30 ± 0.42	3.09	0.002

Fig 2

Male coloration and female gestation period.

Boxplots of gestation period when females paired with colorful males (sample size n = 23) and females paired with drab males (n = 23). The gestation period indicates values before transformation.

The virgin females had immature ova, early yolked, or mature ova (one female: only immature ova; two females: only early yolked ova; four females: only mature ova; two females: early yolked and mature ova). In the laparotomy treatment, all three females that paired with a certain colorful male had early yolk ova when laparotomy was performed (8, 15, and 22 d after pairing). Similarly, all three females that paired with a certain drab male had early yolked ova when laparotomy was performed (6, 12, and 20 d after pairing). These data were excluded from the analyses because those males were likely to be infertile. In addition, four females (two colorful pairs and two drab pairs) died before laparotomy treatment. Eight females (four colorful pairs and four drab pairs) had only small white immature ova or no ova at all. These data were excluded from the analyses. Finally, the number of females used in the analysis was 46 females paired with colorful males and 46 females paired with drab males.

The number of days from pairing and male coloration (colorful/drab) significantly affected the timing of fertilization (Table 2, Fig 3). The inflection points at which half the females had fertilized ova were 11.7 d for colorful pairs and 18.2 d for drab pairs.

Table 2

Results of the generalized linear mixed model in laparotomy experiment.

	Estimate ± Standard error	z	P
Male type	−1.08 ± 0.51	−2.10	0.035
Days	0.21 ± 0.05	4.24	<0.001

Fig 3

Male coloration and timing of fertilization.

Circles indicate females that paired with colorful males and crosses indicate females that paired with drab males. Solid and dotted curves indicate logistic regression lines of females that paired with colorful and drab males, respectively.

Discussion

We investigated whether the male orange spot area (an indicator of male sexual attractiveness) affected the timing of female fertilization. The gestation periods of females that mated with males possessing larger orange areas were significantly shorter than those of females that mated with males possessing smaller orange areas. The gestation period in the guppy broadly comprises two phases: (1) the interval between insemination and fertilization (which may also include a yolk-loading phase), and (2) the ensuing interval between fertilization and parturition [20]. The timing of fertilization in females that paired with males possessing larger orange areas was significantly earlier than that in females that paired with males possessing smaller orange areas. Interestingly, the difference in mean gestation period between females that paired with colorful males and those that paired with drab males was 7.9 d, while the difference in inflection points that 50% of females fertilized their ova was 6.5 d, that is, these differences were approximately similar. These results suggest that the difference in gestation periods depending on mate ornamentation is possibly caused by the difference in timing of fertilization.

In the laparotomy treatments, some females had unfertilized ova when they were paired with drab males more than 18 days after pairing, whereas all females had fertilized ova when they were paired with colorful males. Therefore, it is possible that the statistical analysis may have overestimated the effect of male coloration on the timing of fertilization because it is possible that some females that paired with drab males failed to fertilize their ova. For example, the drab males possibly failed to copulate or deliver sperm during copulation, or the sperm of drab males possibly failed to fertilize the ova. It has previously been reported that male guppies with small orange areas transfer less sperm to females than those with large orange areas [25]; this is the result of female control [26]. However, in the parturition treatment in this study, the fact that the number of females that did not give birth was the same regardless of mate coloration, rejects the possibility that the females that paired with drab males failed to mate or receive sperm. In the parturition treatment, the shortest gestation period was 25 d (this is regarded as the minimum time required for embryonic development to parturition from fertilization), whereas the longest gestation period was 58 d. Therefore, it is possible that the ova could have been fertilized more than 18 d after pairing, because the gestation duration would be 44 d (i.e., 25 d after fertilization), if the ova were fertilized at 19 d after pairing.

We assumed that the difference in the timing of fertilization depending on male sexual ornamentation is a female control that enables a trade-up strategy with multiple mating. However, differences in the timing of fertilization may also be caused by males. A positive relationship between carotenoid-based male ornamentation and sperm quality (velocity) has been reported in several species [27-29]. In fact, it is known that colorful male guppies produce faster sperm [30, 31] (but see [32, 33]). In addition, not only sperm quality but also the number of sperm may affect the timing of fertilization. Colorful male guppies have been reported to produce more sperm [34, 35] and transfer more sperm to females than drab males during co-operational copulations [25]. Alternatively, male semen products, such as induction of ovulation or oviposition and resistance to further insemination by other males [36, 37], may affect the timing of fertilization. Effects on oviposition and resistance to mating are particularly well-documented and widespread in insects and ticks [5], although it has not been reported in guppies. The quality or number of sperm or semen products may affect the timing of fertilization. However, in guppies, it has been reported that the male orange area does not affect the gestation period when females produce their brood under conditions excluding female control, such as artificial insemination [38, 39]. In addition, it has been reported that artificially adjusted ejaculate size does not influence the female gestation period [39]. This supports our assumption that the difference in the timing of fertilization depending on male sexual ornamentation is an effect of cryptic female choice.

Control of the timing of fertilization (or oviposition after copulation) by females has been reported in several arthropods [40-43]. In these species, the lengthened period of female sexual receptivity due to delayed fertilization increases the opportunity for re-mating; as a result, females are able to bias fertilization towards preferred males [41]. By mating with colorful males with large orange areas, female guppies can gain indirect benefits that they produce offspring with high anti-predator ability [38] and algal-foraging ability [44], and sons with more attractive ornaments inherited from the sire [45, 46]. Virgin females are less choosy when they mate for the first time than in subsequent matings, and their probability of re-mating increases if the second male is more attractive than the first [17]. When females mate sequentially with two males in accordance with their mate choice and decision of re-mating, paternity is usually biased towards the second male [17, 47–49]. However, Magris et al. [50] reported that when behavioral interactions between males and females and potential differences in ejaculate size between males were removed using artificial insemination, the second male precedence detected after natural copulation was reversed. Accordingly, they concluded that the last male precedence observed after natural copulations ascribes to female control of the number of sperm transferred during copulation. Thus, through female guppy control of re-mating and the number of sperm transferred during copulation, female guppies can selectively produce higher-quality offspring while avoiding the risk of losing reproductive opportunities. The results of the present study indicate that differences in the timing of fertilization according to male attractiveness of the mate also increase the opportunity for cryptic female choice and trading up.

Females that mate at first with unattractive males will gain the benefit of having offspring of high quality sired by their second attractive mates by delaying fertilization. However, if females do not encounter more attractive males despite delaying fertilization, they will lose future opportunities for reproduction. How long after the first mating will the cost of delaying fertilization be higher than the benefits from trade-up? The duration of gestation in this study was 25–58 d. The duration of gestation in other studies was approximately 22–65 d [19] and 20–60 d [20]. The maximum number of days is approximately twice that of the typical reproductive cycle (approximately 25–30 d [11]). Therefore, the loss of opportunity for one reproductive cycle may be a relatively large cost for females. The cost of delayed fertilization varies according to the expectation of remating with more attractive males or the remaining opportunity for reproduction. Further studies investigating the relationship between these factors and delayed fertilization will contribute to the understanding of the female trade-up strategy.

Conclusions

We found that the timing of fertilization in female guppies was significantly affected by male attractiveness, and females that mated with drab males fertilized later than those that mated with colorful males. This result supports our hypothesis that females that mate with attractive males at the beginning of the sexually receptive period and expected high-quality offspring, fertilize their eggs immediately after mating, whereas the females that mate with less attractive males, delay fertilization for trade-up by sperm from more attractive males. In the guppies, it is known that females re-mate with more colorful males than males that mated previously, and the paternity is biased to the last males [17]. The results of the present study indicate that female guppies increase the opportunity for re-mating and trading up by delaying the timing of fertilization.

Raw data of experiments.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-14329

Male coloration affects female gestation period and timing of fertilization in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sato,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eelke Snoeren

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting and well-conceived study aimed at testing the prediction that female guppies delay egg maturation and fertilization when mated with a less colourful male.

The results seems to support this hypothesis, as the time between mating and parturition is longer in the female mated with drab males as compared to those mated with colourful males. Through dissections, the authors demonstrated that egg maturation proceeds faster in the colourful group.

I think that this may be a valuable contribution, but I have also a few suggestions that may be useful to revise the MS.

English requires extensive editing, and I suggest a revision from a native English speaker.

A general comment: as you also reckon, it is difficult to distinguish between male-controlled and female-controlled effects of mating on fertilization. It may be that the quantity of ejaculate transferred during mating affects subsequent ovulation processes. Previous studies that used artificial insemination failed to find an effect of male colouration, but equal number of bundles were used. It may be interesting to test if different number of sperm inseminated affects gestation length.

Statistical methods:

1) It is not clear if gestation data were tested for normality. From a visual inspection it seems that a log transformation should be applied.

2) I do not see any good reason to use GEE. Data from tetrads in the parturition exp. are not repeated measures, rather they are not independent, and I think a generalized linear mixed model should be more appropriate. Male ID and tetrad can be entered as random factors, and male colour as fixed factor. Probably results will not change much.

3) The use of GEE may be more appropriate for the exp. on egg maturation, although here also a more commonly used generalized LMM may be used too. Indeed, it is not the same male that it is measured at different times, but different females mated with the same male (i.e. not independent) dissected once at different times after mating.

Other points:

Table 1. You should check if male type remains significant after removing for non-significant covariates (brood size and female size).

Line 225: please also give the mean difference +/- SD between that two males

Line 315: there is a study demonstrating a first male fertilization success when female influenced is controlled using artificial insemination (Magris et al. 2017 Animal Behaviour 131:45-55).

Line 318: this is not exact. Your results demonstrate that there is a delay in fertilization over days. Experiments on trade-up (e.g. Evans et al. 2001, Pitcher et al. 2003) involved subsequent matings occurring over a much shorter time (1h up to 24 h). While the observed delay in ovulation mat increase the temporal window within which female cryptic choice can occur, your data do not directly demonstrate that this is involved in trading up. So your conclusion is that delayed fertilization increase the opportunity for cryptic female choice and trading up, not that it is involved in trading up, which is most probably determined by females controlling the number of sperm transferred during matings.

Line 328: I like this argument, this is an interesting point.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

This is a well designed study, and the findings are useful to the scientific community. I have one major change that I would like to see in Figure 2. All edits and comments are embedded within the attached PDF file of your manuscript.

Best wishes!

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kausalya Shenoy

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-14329_EDITED.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

6 Aug 2021

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviewers’ suggestions for revising our manuscript. Addressing their comments has significantly improved the manuscript. The line numbers refer to those of the revised manuscript unless otherwise noted, in which the corresponding changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript with changes tracked.

“When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.”

>>We ensured that revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirement.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

“2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No”

>>We have revised the statistical analysis according to the comments by reviewer #1. Details are described later.

“4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: No”

>> The revised manuscript has been edited by a professional language editing service (highlighted in gray). We have attached a Certificate of English Editing.

5. Review Comments to the Author

“Reviewer #1: This is an interesting and well-conceived study aimed at testing the prediction that female guppies delay egg maturation and fertilization when mated with a less colourful male.

The results seems to support this hypothesis, as the time between mating and parturition is longer in the female mated with drab males as compared to those mated with colourful males. Through dissections, the authors demonstrated that egg maturation proceeds faster in the colourful group.

I think that this may be a valuable contribution, but I have also a few suggestions that may be useful to revise the MS.

English requires extensive editing, and I suggest a revision from a native English speaker.”

>> We appreciate the comment. According to the comments by reviewer #1, the revised manuscript has been edited by a professional language editing service (highlighted in gray).

A general comment:

“as you also reckon, it is difficult to distinguish between male-controlled and female-controlled effects of mating on fertilization. It may be that the quantity of ejaculate transferred during mating affects subsequent ovulation processes. Previous studies that used artificial insemination failed to find an effect of male colouration, but equal number of bundles were used. It may be interesting to test if different number of sperm inseminated affects gestation length.”

>>Thank you for the comment. Evans & Magurran (2000, [19] in the References list) showed that females that mated multiple males had a shorter gestation period than females that mated with a single male. From this comment of reviewer #1, we expect that the findings of Evans & Magurran (2000) can also be explained by the quantity of ejaculate transferred during mating. On the other hand, Pilastro et al. (2008) reported that adjusted ejaculate quantities did not affect the gestation period in artificial insemination. Therefore, we have added a discussion on the possible effects of the different quantities of sperm between colorful and drab males on the female gestation period (Lines 305-308, 315-316).

Statistical methods:

“1) It is not clear if gestation data were tested for normality. From a visual inspection it seems that a log transformation should be applied.”

>> Based on the result of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors significance correction, the gestation period data were not significantly normally distributed (D=0.175, df=46, p=0.001). Therefore, we log transformed the gestation period data (KS test in post-transform; D=0.130, df=46, p=0.050) and applied Box-Cox transformation (D=0.129, df=46, p=0.054). Because the log-transformed values fit the model better in the following test, we used log-transformed values for the analysis. We added the information that the gestation period was log-transformed (Lines 205-207).

“2) I do not see any good reason to use GEE. Data from tetrads in the parturition exp. are not repeated measures, rather they are not independent, and I think a generalized linear mixed model should be more appropriate. Male ID and tetrad can be entered as random factors, and male colour as fixed factor. Probably results will not change much.”

>> Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have now used a generalized linear mixed model for the analysis of gestation data in the revised manuscript. We used the log-transformed gestation period as a dependent variable, the male coloration (colorful/drab) as a fixed factor, and the tetrad ID as a random factor. As suggested by reviewer #1, males were not used repeatedly in the parturition experiment. Therefore, we excluded male ID from the model. In addition, female SL and brood size were excluded from the model, according to the comment in the “other points” section of reviewer #1 and the comment by reviewer #2. The results did not change significantly. We have revised the description of the “statistical analyses” (Lines 202-205) and “results” (Lines 235-237, Table 1).

“3) The use of GEE may be more appropriate for the exp. on egg maturation, although here also a more commonly used generalized LMM may be used too. Indeed, it is not the same male that it is measured at different times, but different females mated with the same male (i.e. not independent) dissected once at different times after mating.”

>> We have used a generalized linear mixed model for analysis of the laparotomy experiment in the revised manuscript. We used tetrad and male ID as random factors. The results were the same as those when using GEE. We have accordingly revised the description of the “statistical analyses” (Lines 210, 212-214) and “results” (Table 2).

Other points:

“Table 1. You should check if male type remains significant after removing for non-significant covariates (brood size and female size).”

>> We removed the brood size and female size from the model. The effect of male type remained significant. We have revised the results (Lines 235-237) and Table 1 accordingly.

“Line 225: please also give the mean difference +/- SD between that two males.”

>>We have added the mean difference+/- SD between that two males: “the difference in the orange area between colorful and drab males pairs was 7.9 % ± 5.0 %” (Lines 228-229).

“Line 315: there is a study demonstrating a first male fertilization success when female influenced is controlled using artificial insemination (Magris et al. 2017 Animal Behaviour 131:45-55).”

>> Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have cited this reference and revised the sentence (Lines 328-332).

“Line 318: this is not exact. Your results demonstrate that there is a delay in fertilization over days. Experiments on trade-up (e.g. Evans et al. 2001, Pitcher et al. 2003) involved subsequent matings occurring over a much shorter time (1h up to 24 h). While the observed delay in ovulation mat increase the temporal window within which female cryptic choice can occur, your data do not directly demonstrate that this is involved in trading up. So your conclusion is that delayed fertilization increase the opportunity for cryptic female choice and trading up, not that it is involved in trading up, which is most probably determined by females controlling the number of sperm transferred during matings.”

>> Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We agree with this comment. We have revised this conclusion accordingly (Lines 334-335).

“Line 328: I like this argument, this is an interesting point.”

>> Thank you. We also look forward to future research.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

“This is a well designed study, and the findings are useful to the scientific community. I have one major change that I would like to see in Figure 2. All edits and comments are embedded within the attached PDF file of your manuscript.

Best wishes!”

>> Thank you for the comments. We appreciate correcting the English. The language corrected according to the comments by reviewer #2 is highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript with changes tracked. We have revised the manuscript as follows in response to other comments.

Lines100-102（previous manuscript）, Line 99-100（revised manuscript）

We received the following comments from the reviewer #2 to our sentence (“In this study, we investigated whether the sexual attractiveness of mated male would affect gestation period and timing of fertilization in female guppies.”)

: “didn’t Evans & Magurran alredady study this?”

>> We have responded as follows:

Evans & Magurran (2000, [19] in the References list) showed that females that mated with multiple males had a shorter gestation period than females that mated with a single male. And it was suggested that females that mated with single male may have delayed the process of fertilization. In this study, we directly tested whether male sexual attractiveness affected the timing of fertilization when a females mated with a single male, through laparotomy experiments.

Line118-122（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the paragraph of “Experimental design” as “Move to introduction after prediction statement”.

We have moved that paragraph to lines 101-105.

L131-132（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the total and standard length as ”caudal fin included or not ?”.

We have added that the total length included the caudal fin and that standard length did not include the caudal fin (Lines 129-130).

L136（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the light for photography as a ”type of bulb? Color temperature?”.

We have added the information that we used the krypton bulb of daylight (Sunlamp KR R45, Asahi). (Lines 135-136)

L140（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented regarding the male photography as “Did you ensure that caudal fin is fully opened to avoid errors in area measurement?”.

We have added the following to the section on male coloration measurement:

“The male body was fully immersed in the anesthetic solution, and after complete lack of movement, the male body was gently shaken in the solution to open the caudal fin. We took some photographs and selected the clearer photographs, and the ones in which the caudal fin was fully opened for analysis (Lines 137-140)”

L147（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the procedure of visually contacting the test females with many males prior to pairing, as to whether all females were placed in a small tank or each female was placed in a small tank.

We have added that the two females in a tetrad were placed in a small tank for visual contact between the females and the males (Line 150).

Line 204（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the analysis of parturition experiment as:

The brood size and the female standard length can be taken out of the model if these effects were not significant.

We changed the method of analysis from general estimating equations (GEE) to generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) according to the comment of reviewer #1. Moreover, the effects of brood size and female size were not significant. Therefore, we removed them from the final model (Lines 235-237, Table 1).

Line210-211（previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the analysis of parturition experiment that tetrad and male ID can be taken out of the model if these effects were not significant.

We have also changed this analysis from GEE to GLMM according to the comment of reviewer #1. Because we used tetrad and male ID as random factors in the GLMM, these factors were used to detect the relationship between the fixed variables and the dependent variable, but did not detect a direct effect on the dependent variable. Therefore, we left them in the model as random variables.

Table 1

According to the changes in the results of analyses, we revised Table 1. In addition, we revised Fig 1 according to the comment from reviewer #2.

Line 250 （previous manuscript）

Reviewer #2 commented on the result that excluded some females from the analysis, as “Number of females remaining in laparotomy treatment was?”

We have added number of females remaining in the analysis of laparotomy treatment:

“Finally, the numbers used in the analysis were 46 females that paired with colorful males and 46 females that paired with drab males” (Lines 257-258).

Fig. 2

Reviewer #2 commented that Fig.2 should change to likely a bar graph. Based on this comment, we have revised Fig. 2. Because original data of the gestation period were not normality, we have changed Fig.2 to boxplots.

Fig.3

Reviewer #2 commented on Fig.2 as “Please make inflection points and the corresponding No of days from pairing for each regression line.”.

We have accordingly revised Fig. 3.

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-14329R1Male coloration affects female gestation period and timing of fertilization in the guppy (Poecilia reticulataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sato,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Khor Waiho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The experimental design is sound and valid. Statistical analyses were appropriate, after the authors' first revision. I invite the authors to address some minor concerns raised by the reviewers to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Guppies are a model organism for sexual selection, and there are many empirical studies on mate choice, but in fact most of them are on pre-copulation mate choice, and empirical research has been limited on post-copulation mate choice (cryptic female sperm choice), although its existence has been predicted. The present study is a good study that reported results supporting the existence of cryptic female sperm choice in guppies through a simple problem formulation and carefully manipulated experiments. In addition, Materials and Methods have been properly improved in revised version.

I think this MS is suitable for publication in PLoS ONE.

I have only a few minor comments.

Comments to the authors

1) Lines 33-35 in revised MS

As reviewer1 mentioned, your results demonstrate that there is a delay in fertilization over days, but your data do not directly showed female cryptic choice.

Therefore, you should revise here as you revised in Line 333-335 in revised MS..

2) Lines 99-100 in revised MS

According to your MS, it seems that the effects of sexual attractiveness of mated males on gestation period in guppies have already revealed in Karino and Sato 2009 (Lines 95-96 [21]).

Did you confirm the previous results, or what are the new points for investigation of gestation period in the present study?

3) Line 99 in revised MS

I think "In this study, we directly tested whether ..." would be more appropriate as you answered to reviewer 2.

4) Lines 281-283 in revised MS

I agree with your idea. However, you don't explain whether other possibilities remain or not. Therefore, if other possibilities remain, I recommend you to revise the sentence as follows:

These results suggest that the difference in gestation periods possibly caused by the difference in timing of fertilization is affected by mate ornamentation.

5) Lines 287-288 in revised MS

I think the following expression would be more appropriate.

"because there are possibilities that some females that paired with drab males failed to fertilize their ova. "

Reviewer #4: This is a informative experiment to reveal fundamental reproduction behaviour of guppy in selecting preference mate, which is important to under how female select potential mate and controlling sperm insemination to produce quality offspring. Authors also provided interesting hypothesizes in the introduction section. Overall, MM, Results and Discussion sections support the hypothesizes and addressing objectives of the study. However, conclusion part was not highlighted the aim of the study and hypothesis of the study. Suggest author to summarize the hypothesis of the study at conclusion section. In addition, discussion section (Line 322-330), how female guppy control preference male sperm for fertilisation? this is interesting point to highlight in the study. Suggest authors discuss a little further about this point.

language need to be improved, some sentences are difficult to follow especially in the MM & discussion sections.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,

19 Nov 2021

Response to reviewers

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviewers’ suggestions for revising our manuscript. We have improved the manuscript according their comments. The reviewers’ comments are appended hereafter in italics, and our responses are provided in regular font. The line numbers refer to those of the revised manuscript, in which the corresponding changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript with changes tracked.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

>> We have reviewed our reference list and ensured that it is complete and correct. We have not cited papers that have been retracted.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The experimental design is sound and valid. Statistical analyses were appropriate, after the authors' first revision. I invite the authors to address some minor concerns raised by the reviewers to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

>> Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript as follows:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

>> The revised manuscript has been edited by a professional language editing service. We have attached a certificate for English editing.

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: Guppies are a model organism for sexual selection, and there are many empirical studies on mate choice, but in fact most of them are on pre-copulation mate choice, and empirical research has been limited on post-copulation mate choice (cryptic female sperm choice), although its existence has been predicted. The present study is a good study that reported results supporting the existence of cryptic female sperm choice in guppies through a simple problem formulation and carefully manipulated experiments. In addition, Materials and Methods have been properly improved in revised version.

I think this MS is suitable for publication in PLoS ONE.

I have only a few minor comments.

>> Thank you for your comments. We have responded to the comments as follows:

Comments to the authors

1) Lines 33-35 in revised MS

As reviewer1 mentioned, your results demonstrate that there is a delay in fertilization over days, but your data do not directly showed female cryptic choice.

Therefore, you should revise here as you revised in Line 333-335 in revised MS..

>>Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the conclusion of the abstract as follows:

“Our findings show that differences in the timing of fertilization according to attractiveness of the mate increase the opportunity for cryptic female choice and trading up.” (Lines 36-37)

2) Lines 99-100 in revised MS

According to your MS, it seems that the effects of sexual attractiveness of mated males on gestation period in guppies have already revealed in Karino and Sato 2009 (Lines 95-96 [21]).

Did you confirm the previous results, or what are the new points for investigation of gestation period in the present study?

>> In this study, we aimed to determine whether “the difference in gestation period according to male attractiveness in a parturition treatment experiment” and “the difference in the timing of fertilization according to male attractiveness in a laparotomy treatment experiment” correspond. We were afraid that the gestation period or timing of fertilization could be affected by female size or water temperature. In addition, in Karino and Sato (2009), females mated with males only once, but in this study, females were placed in the same tank as males for 24 h. Therefore, we wanted to measure the gestation period and timing of fertilization under the same conditions.

In addition, control data were needed to support the possibility that unfertilized eggs in the parturition treatment were female manipulation rather than failure in pregnancy.

Based on the above, we examined the female gestation periods in this study. In the revised manuscript, we have changed the end of the introduction as follows:

“In this study, we directly tested whether the sexual attractiveness of mated males affects the timing of fertilization in female guppies. We observed whether the ova were fertilized by opening their abdomens between 2 and 22 d after pairing with colorful or drab males. Additionally, we measured the gestation period (duration from mating to parturition) between females that mated with colorful males and those that mated with drab males, and compared whether the difference in the timing of fertilization according to male coloration reflected the difference in the gestation period.” (Lines 102-108）

3) Line 99 in revised MS

I think "In this study, we directly tested whether ..." would be more appropriate as you answered to reviewer 2.

>>We revised this sentence according to this comment as follows:

“In this study, we directly tested whether the sexual attractiveness of mated males affects the timing of fertilization in female guppies.” (Lines 102-103)

4) Lines 281-283 in revised MS

I agree with your idea. However, you don't explain whether other possibilities remain or not. Therefore, if other possibilities remain, I recommend you to revise the sentence as follows:

These results suggest that the difference in gestation periods possibly caused by the difference in timing of fertilization is affected by mate ornamentation.

>> We agree with your comment. We have revised this sentence according to this comment and revision from a professional language editing service. “These results suggest that the difference in gestation periods depending on mate ornamentation is possibly caused by the difference in timing of fertilization.” (Lines 284-285)

5) Lines 287-288 in revised MS

I think the following expression would be more appropriate.

"because there are possibilities that some females that paired with drab males failed to fertilize their ova. "

>> We have revised this sentence according to this comment and revision from a professional language editing service. “because it is possible that some females that paired with drab males failed to fertilize their ova.” (Lines 289-290)

Reviewer #4: This is a informative experiment to reveal fundamental reproduction behaviour of guppy in selecting preference mate, which is important to under how female select potential mate and controlling sperm insemination to produce quality offspring. Authors also provided interesting hypothesizes in the introduction section. Overall, MM, Results and Discussion sections support the hypothesizes and addressing objectives of the study. However, conclusion part was not highlighted the aim of the study and hypothesis of the study. Suggest author to summarize the hypothesis of the study at conclusion section. In addition, discussion section (Line 322-330), how female guppy control preference male sperm for fertilisation? this is interesting point to highlight in the study. Suggest authors discuss a little further about this point.

language need to be improved, some sentences are difficult to follow especially in the MM & discussion sections.

>> Thank you for your helpful comments. We have put a section “Conclusions” to which we have added a summary of the hypothesis of the study (Lines 355-365). In addition, we added to the discussion section a report from a previous study on how females bias paternity toward the second male when they mate sequentially with two males (Lines 329-336).

To improve the language of our manuscript, we have received the service of a professional language editing service and have revised our manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Nov 2021

Male coloration affects female gestation period and timing of fertilization in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata)

PONE-D-21-14329R2

Dear Dr. Aya Sato,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact

Kind regards,

Khor Waiho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

25 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-14329R2

Male coloration affects female gestation period and timing of fertilization in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata)

Dear Dr. Sato:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Khor Waiho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE