Male chickadees with better spatial cognition sire more extra-pair young

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript presents compelling evidence from a wild chickadee population linking heritable spatial cognition to extra-pair paternity success, supporting sexual selection via good genes in a food-caching species. The integration of RFID cognition tests with ddRAD paternity assignment is methodologically strong and timely for behavioral ecology, though causal mechanisms and confounds warrant clarification.

Overall, a major revision of the manuscript is recommended, addressing the points below.

(1) Confirmation of manipulation and treatment effects. The central claim hinges on spatial cognition driving EP siring, but direct evidence that cognition predicts observed copulations (vs. post-copulatory mechanisms) is absent. While territories do not cluster by performance (Figure S4), quantify male aggression/movement data during fertile periods to rule out intrusion-based EPP. The authors should provide metrics like nearest-neighbor distances for EP sires or playback responses linking cognition to dominance, as in prior chickadee work. Without this, causal female preference remains correlational.

(2) Female cognition-EPY link inconsistency. Poor female cognition predicts more EPY (first-20-trials: offspring-level χ²=6.21, P=0.013; nests: χ²=6.79, P=0.009), but not for full-task (P>0.5). The authors should discuss why (e.g., learning speed vs. memory stability) and add exploratory correlations (female errors vs. EPY proportion). They should soften claims in the Discussion section of "female-driven" without consistent support and should frame this as a hypothesis.

(3) Cognitive task sensitivity and validity. Mean errors aggregate learning curves effectively, but single feeder-assignment (non-preferred) confounds neophobia/motivation with spatial ability. The authors should report trial-by-trial improvements (Figure S7 subset) or criterion-to-learn metrics. Justify excluding high-error birds (<3 mean); sensitivity analysis needed to check bias toward high performers.

(4) Paternity assignment robustness. ddRAD-CERVUS with bimodal LODs (Figure S8) is solid, but unassigned EPY (social-genotyped but no sire) implies missing sires (~?% of EPY?). Include all alive males as candidates yearly? Test power simulations for LOD thresholds. 2019 exclusion justified, but multi-year SNP alignment could boost resolution.

(5) Mechanistic speculation vs. data. Discussion invokes hippocampus genes (GWAS priors) and good genes, but no offspring cognition/survival data. Label as hypotheses; suggest tracking EPY recruitment. No brood size costs for EP sires is key, but monitor long-term nest investment (e.g., feeding rates).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors ask whether spatial cognition is under sexual selection in mountain chickadees. To do so, the authors examined a large dataset that includes a) spatial cognition data for both males and females (obtained via use of a clever RFID-based feeder system) and b) social and extra-pair paternity nesting data. As predicted, males with higher spatial cognition sired more extra-pair offspring, and extra-pair sires had, on average, higher spatial cognition scores than the males they cuckolded. Interestingly, females with lower spatial cognition scores were more likely to seek extra-pair copulations, potentially to compensate for their own low spatial cognition. Surprisingly, there was no difference in spatial cognition scores between males that sired their own offspring and those that lost paternity at the nest. Also surprising was the fact that there were no differences in patterns of extra-pair paternity and spatial cognition between high- and low-elevation sites. The latter is particularly surprising in that spatial cognition should be under stronger selection at the high elevation site. Overall, this is a fascinating study that demonstrates that spatial cognition - a trait under natural selection as it directly impacts winter foraging and survival behaviour -is also under sexual selection.

Strengths:

The authors have a robust dataset (n = 732 offspring sampled over 3 years), high-quality spatial cognition data collected with a procedure that has been well-honed over the years, and couple the data with solid statistical procedures that address many potential covariates and potentially confounding factors. In addition, the authors are careful in the discussion to elaborate on the many potential alternative explanations from the results and questions that are likely to arise in the minds of readers (e.g., how are females assessing male spatial ability?)

Weaknesses:

Overall, no major weaknesses were identified in this study. As always, there are editorial issues that I would encourage the authors to consider, including presentation of data/results and clarification on some statistical issues. Overall, however, this is an excellent study that will make an important contribution to our understanding of the evolution of cognition and targets of sexual selection.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors presented evidence that spatial cognition in this population is under sexual selection, with extra-pair males, primarily chosen by the females, having better spatial cognition than males they cuckolded and males with better spatial cognition having more extra-pair young.

Strengths:

This cognitive ecology study was conducted on a well-known long-term study population of free-ranging mountain chickadees. This strong base, alongside a thorough study design and extensive statistical analyses, enabled the authors to address research questions that few other labs can address, making this a potentially powerful study of broad general interest.

Weaknesses:

Throughout the manuscript, there is a focus on the "mean number of location errors per trial over the first 20 trials". Performance changes across trials, so why weren't learning vs peak performance analyzed separately? Similarly, authors also describe results in the context of the entire task, but sometimes in the context of the first 20 trials - why is one prioritised over the other, and why is the emphasis not always consistent? Are the results across the two generally the same? A more thorough explanation addressing all these points is necessary.

Lines 429-432: Why was a categorical (i.e., chi-square test) and not a numerical comparison implemented? A numerical statistical test would capture more of the variation (i.e., the number of years separating the social and EPY males).