4.4 Article

Parental Care Trade-Offs and Life-History Relationships in Insects

Journal

AMERICAN NATURALIST
Volume 176, Issue 2, Pages 212-226

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/653661

Keywords

reproductive allocation; parental investment; clutch size; phylogenetic-comparative method; information theory; density dependence

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [02/A1/S/8091]
  2. Balfour-Browne Fund
  3. Chibnall Fund
  4. Cambridge Philosophical Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insect parental care is extensive and varied, but its life-history implications have never been comparatively tested. Using original and literature data, we tested predictions about egg size, egg number (lifetime fecundity), and body size under different parental care modes across a phylogeny of 287 insect species. Life-history theory and both comparative and intraspecific evidence from ectotherms suggest parental care should select for bigger, fewer eggs, but that allometric scaling of egg size and lifetime fecundity may depend on whether care consists of provisioning (density-dependent offspring survival) or merely guarding (density-independent offspring survival). Against expectation, egg size was indistinguishable among parental care modes, covarying only with body size. This refutes most theory of egg size evolution under parental care. Lifetime fecundity scaled differently depending on parental investment-positively under no care and guarding, as in most ectotherms, but negatively under provisioning. Reproductive allocation in provisioning insects resembled that in mammals and birds, also groups with obligate provisioning. We propose that the metabolic demands of multiple offspring must scale with species body size more steeply than the parent's provisioning capacity, resulting in larger females laying fewer eggs. These patterns lay the groundwork for a more general understanding of parental care and life history.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available