4.2 Article

Phenotypic plasticity in reproductive and somatic efforts of female Columbian ground squirrels

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2023-0108

关键词

Columbian ground squirrel; phenotypic plasticity; repeatability; reproductive effort; somatic effort; Urocitellus columbianus (Ord, 1815)

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenotypic plasticity of reproductive and somatic efforts was found in female Columbian ground squirrels, indicating variability in resource allocation. Individual variation was observed, but the pattern of responses among individuals in the population varied.
Phenotypic plasticity of life-history traits is well known among vertebrate species. We estimated reproductive and somatic ef-forts of female Columbian ground squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus (Ord, 1815)) to test for plasticity of these important resource allocations. We examined a 27-year dataset of life-history traits on these long-living (8-10 years), hibernating, montane-living mammals. Environmental variation was estimated from two important traits of mothers, their relative timing of breeding and spring maternal body mass (initial capital for use in subsequent reproduction). Results from 183 known-aged mothers and 508 litters revealed considerable variation in the relative timing of breeding, initial maternal mass, and reproductive and so-matic efforts, as well as significant variation among ages and years. Results from 125 mothers that reproduced more than once (and 450 litters) revealed significant plasticity of reproductive and somatic efforts with respect to relative timing of breeding and spring maternal mass. A within-subject centering statistical approach showed that phenotypically plastic reproductive and somatic efforts were due to variation within individuals, but were not always reflected by the pattern of responses among individuals in the population. The plastic responses of different mothers appeared to be similar in strength.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据