4.7 Article

When fecundity does not equal fitness: evidence of an offspring quantity versus quality trade-off in pre-industrial humans

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 275, Issue 1635, Pages 713-722

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1000

Keywords

life-history evolution; maternal fitness; recruitment; reproductive success; resource acquisition; socio-economic status

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Maternal fitness should be maximized by the optimal division of reproductive investment between offspring number and offspring quality. While evidence for this is abundant in many taxa, there have been fewer tests in mammals, and in particular, humans. We used a dataset of humans spanning three generations from pre-industrial Finland to test how increases in maternal fecundity affect offspring quality and maternal fitness in contrasting socio-economic conditions. For `resource-poor' landless families, but not `resource-rich' landowning families, maternal fitness returns diminished with increased maternal fecundity. This was because the average offspring contribution to maternal fitness declined with increased maternal fecundity for landless but not landowning families. This decline was due to reduced offspring recruitment with increased maternal fecundity. However, in landowning families, recruited offspring fecundity increased with increased maternal fecundity. This suggests that despite decreased offspring recruitment, maternal fitness is not reduced in favourable socio-economic conditions due to an increase in subsequent offspring fecundity. These results provide evidence consistent with an offspring quantity-quality trade-off in the lifetime reproduction of humans from poor socio-economic conditions. The results also highlight the importance of measuring offspring quality across their whole lifespan to estimate reliably the fitness consequences of increased maternal fecundity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available