Organismal fitness is relevant in many contexts in biology. The most meaningful experimental measure of fitness is competitive fitness, when two or more entities (e.g., genotypes) are allowed to compete directly. In theory, competitive fitness is simple to measure: an experimental population is initiated with the different types in known proportions and allowed to evolve under experimental conditions to a predefined endpoint. In practice, there are several obstacles to obtaining robust estimates of competitive fitness in multicellular organisms, the most pervasive of which is simply the time it takes to count many individuals of different types from many replicate populations. Methods by which counting can be automated in high throughput are desirable, but for automated methods to be useful, the bias and technical variance associated with the method must be (a) known, and (b) sufficiently small relative to other sources of bias and variance to make the effort worthwhile. The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is an important model organism, and the fitness effects of genotype and environmental conditions are often of interest. We report a comparison of three experimental methods of quantifying competitive fitness, in which wild-type strains are competed against GFP-marked competitors under standard laboratory conditions. Population samples were split into three replicates and counted (1) "by eye" from a saved image, (2) from the same image using CellProfiler image analysis software, and (3) with a large particle flow cytometer (a "worm sorter"). From 720 replicate samples, neither the frequency of wild-type worms nor the among-sample variance differed significantly between the three methods. CellProfiler and the worm sorter provide at least a tenfold increase in sample handling speed with little (if any) bias or increase in variance.

Androdioecious Caenorhabditis have a high frequency of self-compatible hermaphrodites and a low frequency of males. The effects of mutations on male fitness are of interest for two reasons. First, when males are rare, selection on male-specific mutations is less efficient than in hermaphrodites. Second, males may present a larger mutational target than hermaphrodites because of the different ways in which fitness accrues in the two sexes. We report the first estimates of male-specific mutational effects in an androdioecious organism. The rate of male-specific inviable or sterile mutations is ≤ 5 x 10-4/generation, below the rate at which males would be lost solely due to those kinds of mutations. The rate of mutational decay of male competitive fitness is ~0.17%/generation; that of hermaphrodite competitive fitness is ~0.11%/generation. The point estimate of ~1.5X faster rate of mutational decay of male fitness is nearly identical to the same ratio in Drosophila. Estimates of mutational variance (VM) for male mating success and competitive fitness are not significantly different from zero, whereas VM for hermaphrodite competitive fitness is similar to that of non-competitive fitness. Two independent estimates of the average selection coefficient against mutations affecting hermaphrodite competitive fitness agree to within two-fold, 0.33%-0.5%.