How populations and species respond to modified environmental conditions is critical to their persistence both now and into the future, particularly given the increasing pace of environmental change. The process of adaptation to novel environmental conditions can occur via two mechanisms: (1) the expression of phenotypic plasticity (the ability of one genotype to express varying phenotypes when exposed to different environmental conditions), and (2) evolution via selection for particular phenotypes, resulting in the modification of genetic variation in the population. Plasticity, because it acts at the level of the individual, is often hailed as a rapid-response mechanism that will enable organisms to adapt and survive in our rapidly changing world. But plasticity can also retard adaptation by shifting the distribution of phenotypes in the population, shielding it from natural selection. In addition to which, not all plastic responses are adaptive—now well-documented in cases of ecological traps. In this theme issue, we aim to present a considered view of plasticity and the role it could play in facilitating or hindering adaption to environmental change. This introduction provides a re-examination of our current understanding of the role of phenotypic plasticity in adaptation and sets the theme issue's contributions in their broader context. Four key themes emerge: the need to measure plasticity across both space and time; the importance of the past in predicting the future; the importance of the link between plasticity and sexual selection; and the need to understand more about the nature of selection on plasticity itself. We conclude by advocating the need for cross-disciplinary collaborations to settle the question of whether plasticity will promote or retard species' rates of adaptation to ever-more stressful environmental conditions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change’.

In a rapidly changing environment, does sexual selection on males elevate a population's reproductive output? If so, does phenotypic plasticity enhance or diminish any such effect? We outline two routes by which sexual selection can influence the reproductive output of a population: a genetic correlation between male sexual competitiveness and female lifetime reproductive success; and direct effects of males on females' breeding success. We then discuss how phenotypic plasticity of sexually selected male traits and/or female responses (e.g. plasticity in mate choice), as the environment changes, might influence how sexual selection affects a population's reproductive output. Two key points emerge. First, condition-dependent expression of male sexual traits makes it likely that sexual selection increases female fitness if reproductively successful males disproportionately transfer genes that are under natural selection in both sexes, such as genes for foraging efficiency. Condition-dependence is a form of phenotypic plasticity if some of the variation in net resource acquisition and assimilation is attributable to the environment rather than solely genetic in origin. Second, the optimal allocation of resources into different condition-dependent traits depends on their marginal fitness gains. As male condition improves, this can therefore increase or, though rarely highlighted, actually decrease the expression of sexually selected traits. It is therefore crucial to understand how condition determines male allocation of resources to different sexually selected traits that vary in their immediate effects on female reproductive output (e.g. ornaments versus coercive behaviour). In addition, changes in the distribution of condition among males as the environment shifts could reduce phenotypic variance in certain male traits, thereby reducing the strength of sexual selection imposed by females. Studies of adaptive evolution under rapid environmental change should consider the possibility that phenotypic plasticity of sexually selected male traits, even if it elevates male fitness, could have a negative effect on female reproductive output, thereby increasing the risk of population extinction. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change’.

Although it is widely stated that both mating behavior and sperm traits are energetically costly for males, we currently lack empirical estimates of the relative costs to males of pre- versus postcopulatory investments. Such estimates require the experimental separation of the act of mating from that of ejaculation, which is a nontrivial logistical challenge. Here, we overcome this challenge using a novel morphological manipulation (gonopodium tip ablation) in the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) to tease apart investment in mating effort from that in sperm replenishment following ejaculation. We quantified the relative cumulative costs of investing in mating effort and ejaculation by comparing somatic traits and reproductive performance among three types of males: ablated males that could attempt to mate but not ejaculate; unablated males that could both mate and ejaculate; and control males that had no access to females. We show that, after eight weeks, mating investment significantly reduces both body growth and immunocompetence and results in a significant decline in mating effort. In contrast, cumulative investment into sperm replenishment following ejaculation has few detectable effects that are only apparent in smaller males. These minor costs occur despite the fact that G. holbrooki has very high levels of sperm competition and multiple mating by both sexes, which is usually associated with elevated levels of sperm production. Crucially, our study is the first, to our knowledge, to experimentally compare the relative costs of pre- and postcopulatory investment on components of male fitness in a vertebrate.