4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Performance Tradeoffs, Ontogenetic Conflict, and Multisport Athletes: How is an Ironman Triathlete Like a Frog?

期刊

INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 207-216

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/icb/icx014

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS] [1637178]
  2. CAPES [SwB] [13442/13-9]
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1637178] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life-history theory is a cornerstone of modern evolutionary biology that addresses myriad phenomena ranging from demography and population structure to the evolution of aging and senescence. Trade-offs may arise in a number of contexts, from allocation-based (e.g., egg size vs. egg number) to genomic conflicts (e.g., intralocus sexual conflict in which genes that perform well in males perform poorly in females). Here we test for performance tradeoffs in human athletes. We show that in Ironman triathletes, swimming performance trades off with cycling and running performance. The tradeoff appears to be plastic, in that only highly trained athletes experience the tradeoff. We then investigate whether wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) experience similar locomotor performance tradeoffs, to ask whether the divergent environments experienced by tadpoles and frogs leads to ontogenetic conflict (tradeoffs over development). We show that although swimming and jumping performance are positively correlated, antagonistic natural selection may still favor alternative adaptive optima in the two life history stages. However, adaptive decoupling of the life stages during metamorphosis may resolve ontogenetic conflict and facilitate independent adaptation to both environments. Thus, whereas performance tradeoffs are general in both systems, the unique selective environment of amphibians has favored the evolution of mechanisms to alleviate the costs of those tradeoffs.

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

4.4
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