4.5 Article

Reproductive versus ecological advantages to larger body size in female snakes, Vipera aspis

Journal

OIKOS
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 509-518

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890310.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Body size can influence an organism's microevolutionary fitness either via ecological factors (ecological selection) or changes in reproductive output (sexual or fecundity selection). Published studies on sexual dimorphism in reptiles have generally focussed on sexual-selective forces on males, under the implicit assumption that the intensity of fecundity selection in females (and hence, overall selection on female body size) is likely to be relatively consistent among lineages. In this paper, we explore the degree to which larger body size enhances ecological attributes (e.g., food intake, growth, survival) and reproductive output (reproductive frequency, litter size, offspring size, offspring viability) in free-ranging female aspic vipers, Vipera aspis. The less-than-annual reproductive frequency of these animals allows us to make a direct comparison between females in years during which they concentrate on ecological challenges (especially building energy reserves) versus reproductive challenges (producing a litter). Because female snakes have limited abdominal space to hold the clutch (litter), we expect that fecundity should depend on body size. However, our data show that larger body size had a more consistent effect on ecological attributes (such as feeding rates and costs of reproduction) than on reproductive output per se. Indeed, total reproductive output was maximised at intermediate body sizes. These results suggest that variation in female body size among and within species (and hence, in the degree of sexual dimorphism) may be driven by the ecological as well as reproductive consequences of body size variation in both sexes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available