4.8 Review

Fitness costs of reproduction depend on life speed: empirical evidence from mammalian populations

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 915-935

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01478.x

Keywords

Environmental canalization; investment; mammals; reproductive tactics; resource acquisition; resource allocation; rodents; ungulates; van Noordwijk and de Jong's model; variable environment

Categories

Funding

  1. Le Fonds quebecois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies
  2. Norwegian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Fitness costs of reproduction play a key role in understanding the evolution of reproductive tactics. Nevertheless, the detection and the intensity of costs of reproduction vary according to which life-history traits and species are studied. We propose an evolutionary model demonstrating that the chance of detecting a cost of reproduction should be lower when the fitness component studied has a low rather than high variance. Consequently, the fitness component that is affected the most by costs of reproduction should vary with life speed. Since long-lived species have developed a strategy that avoids jeopardizing their survival and short-lived species favour current reproduction, variance in survival is smaller and variance in reproduction higher in long-lived vs. short-lived species. We review empirical studies of costs of reproduction in free-ranging mammals, comparing evidence of costs reported among species and focal traits. In support of our model, more studies reported evidence of reproductive costs of reproduction in ungulates than in rodents, whereas survival costs of reproduction were more frequent in rodents than in ungulates. The life-history model we propose is expected to apply to any species, and hence provides a better understanding of life-history variation, which should be relevant to all evolutionary ecologists.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available